Upjohn Institute Technical Reports Upjohn Research home page

8-22-2019

Individual Training Accounts and Nonstandard Work Individual Training Accounts and Nonstandard Work

Arrangements Arrangements

Randall W. Eberts W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Upjohn Author(s) ORCID Identifier:

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9711-5466

Follow this and additional works at: https://research.upjohn.org/up_technicalreports

Part of the Labor Economics Commons

Citation Citation Eberts, Randall W. 2019. "Individual Training Accounts and Nonstandard Work Arrangements." Upjohn Institute Technical Report No. 19-037. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/tr19-037

This title is brought to you by the Upjohn Institute. For more information, please contact repository@upjohn.org.

Individual Training Accounts and

Nonstandard Work Arrangements

Randall W. Eberts

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Final Draft

Prepared for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

August 13, 2019

1

Abstract

This paper was commissioned by the Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD)

to describe the use of Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) under the Workforce Innovation and

Opportunity Act and under its predecessor the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Particular interest is in

the use of ITAs by WIOA participants from nonstandard work arrangements. The study provides detailed

information about the use of ITAs by participants of the two adult programs under WIOA, Disadvantaged

Adult Programs and Dislocated Worker Programs, and in two states, Michigan and Washington.

Information for the WIOA programs is gathered and analyzed from the public-use version of the WIOA

Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL). One of the unique features of the ITAs is the use of an

informed choice model, in which participants, once determined eligible for training, have final say as to

the training program they choose, but they must consult with WIOA counselors and standard information

available through WIOA about the programs before making that choice. The study finds that even

between the two states, the use of training and ITAs varies widely across the two WIOA programs. That

trend continued prior to WIOA when WIA was in effect. The study concludes that the two WIOA

programs do not accommodate workers from nonstandard work arrangements, except for those who fit

the eligibility criteria established by the WIOA Adult Program for low-income workers. The study points

out that low-income workers are equally, if not more, likely to come from nonstandard work

arrangements, such as self-employment, as from more traditional arrangements. However, both programs

are geared to placing participants in standard work settings once they have completed the training or other

services provided by the WIOA programs. The study informs current policy by pointing out the neglect of

current public workforce programs to focus more on nonstandard work arrangements that exist within

today’s workforce.

JEL codes: J24, J38

Key words: Individual Training Accounts, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Nonstandard

work arrangements, informed choice

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance received from staff of local Workforce

Investment Boards and state employment agencies from the two study states. Their willingness to be

interviewed by the author and to refer the author to key documents relating to WIOA at the federal, state,

and local levels is greatly appreciated. The administration of WIOA programs in general, and the training

services, including Individual Training Accounts in particular, is determined by a vast set of rules and

regulations that are meticulously recorded and followed by staff from the federal to the local levels. The

author appreciates staff’s willingness to identify and interpret the key documents necessary to understand

the purpose, eligibility criteria, funding sources, and overall administration of ITAs. In Michigan, I

appreciate the assistance of Ben Damerow, Amy Meyers, Jakki Bungart-Bibb, and Nancy Gibson, as well

as others I interviewed in the state workforce system. In Washington, I am particularly grateful to Eleni

Papadakis, executive director of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, her staff, and

staff from other agencies for their assistance.

2

ABBREVIATIONS CHART

Abbreviation Meaning BA Bachelor of Arts BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CNA Certified Nursing Assistant CPS Current Population Survey DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (US DHS) ETA Employment and Training Administration ETP Eligible Training Provider ETPL Eligible Training Provider List ITA/ITAs Individual Training Account(s) JTPA Job Training Partnership Act OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OJT On-the-Job Training PIRL Participant Individual Record Layout TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TEGL Training and Employment Guidance Letter UI Unemployment Insurance USDOL United States Department of Labor WDCs Workforce Development Councils WIA Workforce Investment Act of 1998 WIASRD Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data WIBs Workforce Investment Boards WID Workforce information database WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act WTECB Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board

3

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper focuses on Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) provided under the

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which is currently the nation’s primary

workforce development program. Particular emphasis is placed on the extent to which

individuals in nonstandard forms of work have access to training funded through WIOA

programs. As nonstandard work arrangements continue to proliferate, an increasing number of

workers fall outside of the traditional relationship between worker and employer.

An ITA is a voucher that an individual who has met the requirements to establish an ITA

can use to pay for a training program of his or her choice. Customers who are granted an ITA

may use the funds assigned to their account to contract with a third-party training provider.

However, an ITA is not an entitlement. Those who are granted an ITA must first be determined

to be eligible for the WIOA programs, must work directly and in person with a career counselor

to determine whether they need training, must develop an individual employment plan, and must

choose a program that provides training in an occupation that is in demand by local employers

and is offered by a qualified training provider. The amount of money available to a holder of an

ITA may vary depending on need and available public funding, and that amount may change

during the time an individual holds an ITA.

To understand the purpose, structure, eligibility requirements, and funding of ITAs, one

must also understand the workforce programs that offer ITAs. WIOA, passed by Congress in

July 2014, is a federal-state-local partnership in which the three levels of government share

responsibility for delivering training and other reemployment services. It replaced a similar

program, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which was enacted in 1998. WIOA extends

4

many of the programs of its predecessor; yet it emphasizes to an even greater extent than WIA

the integration of workforce development with economic development. Like its predecessor,

WIOA has two customers—the job seeker and the employer. The basic premise of this dual-

customer approach is that preparing job seekers for vacancies that businesses are looking to fill

will satisfy both the desire of job seekers to find gainful employment and the need for businesses

to find the talent necessary to be successful. Training is considered an essential service for those

job seekers who do not have skills to find or retain a job or to earn a wage high enough for them

and their families to be self-sufficient.

Three programs are included under WIOA. Two are targeted at adult job seekers—the

Disadvantaged Adult Program and the Dislocated Worker Program—and the third focuses on

youth aged 16–24. In all three programs, the federal government provides funding, guidelines,

and strategic direction to states and local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs). States and local

WIBs tailor the programs to meet the specific needs of the customers in their jurisdictions, and

local WIBs administer the delivery of services and contract with third-party organizations to

deliver the services.1 Under WIOA, all training funded through the three programs is contracted

to third parties, such as community colleges or private training organizations; the state and local

WIBs do not provide training services directly. ITAs are the primary means by which these two

programs provide occupational-skill-training services to individuals, by allowing the individuals

to contract directly with providers.

1 More specifically, states include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories, such as Puerto Rico and

the Virgin Islands. There are more than 500 WIBs in the United States, and each WIB administers at least one

American Job Center, or service center, where customers go to work with career counselors and other staff and

receive basic reemployment services, such as labor market information and access to computers to check postings

and write resumes, and where they receive referrals to more intensive services. There are 2,500 American Job

Centers (one-stop service centers) across the country. States may use different terminology and brand names to refer

to local WIBs. For example, in Michigan, they are referred to as Michigan Works! offices; in Washington State they

are known as Workforce Development Councils. For the purposes of this paper, the generic term WIBs will be used

to refer to the local workforce agencies.

5

This paper focuses only on the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs, since the Youth

program offers little, if any, training through ITAs. Moreover, while other federal programs

provide training of various types, these will not be discussed in this paper, since the emphasis is

on ITAs, which are offered only under WIOA.

In addition to providing details on ITAs as prescribed by WIOA legislation and U.S.

Department of Labor (USDOL) rules and regulations, this paper also describes the

administration of ITAs in two states—Michigan and Washington. These two states were selected

because of the contrast in their economies and their administration of the workforce programs.

The contrast in the two state economies is pertinent for examining access to training, and

ITAs more specifically, for workers in nonstandard work arrangements. Michigan’s economy is

characterized by more traditional manufacturing, since it was historically the center of the

automobile industry and still is home to the two largest domestic auto producers—Ford and

General Motors. Besides the direct operations of these two corporations and a third large auto

producer, Fiat Chrysler, the state is home to numerous suppliers of parts to the auto assembly

companies. The state of Washington, in contrast, is known for the recent emergence of high-tech

companies, most notably Microsoft and Amazon. But long before these companies were

founded, the Seattle area was home to Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company. Even

though the company is now headquartered in Chicago, it is still the state’s largest private-sector

employer. Along with these dominant high-tech companies are suppliers and startups that

continue to fill in the Seattle/Puget Sound landscape. Because of the large presence of high-tech

companies in Washington State, the workforce has a high concentration of high-tech workers,

who are more likely to work under nonstandard work arrangements than workers in more

traditional industries.

6

2. INDIVIDUALS IN NONSTANDARD WORK FORMS

Whether a person in nonstandard work forms has access to training using WIOA funds,

particularly through ITAs, depends upon the criteria for eligibility for the two adult WIOA

programs and the assessment of the need for training within those programs. There are no

specific priorities, or funds set aside, for such individuals. Still, individuals in nonstandard work

arrangements may receive ITAs through the normal determination of eligibility for the WIOA

Adult programs.

Before exploring the representation of persons from nonstandard work forms

participating in ITAs, it is important to examine differences in definitions of nonstandard work

posited by the OECD and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This section compares the

OECD definition of nonstandard work arrangements with that of the BLS. Section 3 considers

whether those in nonstandard work forms meet the eligibility criteria set forth by WIOA and

whether those individuals are given priority in being referred to training.

The OECD, in its terms of reference for this project, defines nonstandard work forms as

• casual workers (on-call, voucher-based, and zero-hour contracts and mini/flexi-jobs),

• temporary and agency workers, and

• self-employed workers (including platform and gig workers).

WIOA follows the definitions of nonstandard work forms set forth by the BLS, the

government agency that collects and compiles the official U.S. labor statistics. BLS defines three

categories of nonstandard work forms—1) contingent workers, 2) alternative workers, and 3)

self-employment—which are different from the definitions put forth by the OECD. BLS

estimates the first two categories in a special survey, which is conducted only occasionally,

whereas estimates of self-employment are included monthly with the Current Population Survey

(CPS). The first two categories are estimated as part of a supplement to the CPS, the last of

7

which was released in June of 2018 with estimates for May of the preceding year. The

supplement preceding the most recent one was released for 2005.

In the June 2018 report, the BLS announced that 3.8 percent of workers—5.9 million

people—held contingent jobs, and 10.1 percent of workers—15.5 million people—had various

forms of alternative work arrangements. During that same period, the BLS estimated that 9.7

million workers were self-employed, which accounted for 6.3 percent of workers.2 In total, about

31.1 million persons, or 20.2 percent of workers, are included in these three categories, assuming

that a worker identifies with a single category and thus there is no overlap of individuals across

categories.

Table A1, found in the appendix, shows these categories in more detail and attempts to

relate the BLS categories to the OECD categories, to the extent possible. Unfortunately, some

forms of nonstandard work arrangements delineated by OECD are not explicitly identified in the

BLS categories and can be spread among the various BLS categories. For example, the BLS

states that gig workers could be in contingent or alternative employment arrangements, or both.

Contingent workers are those who don’t have an implicit or explicit contract for long-term

employment. Alternative employment arrangements include independent contractors (also called

freelancers or independent consultants), on-call workers, and workers provided by temporary

help agencies or contract firms. Furthermore, gig workers may be included in counts of workers

who are part-time, self-employed, or hold multiple jobs. The number of workers holding part-

time jobs and multiple jobs are not included in the table, since these counts also include workers

who are not part of the gig workforce or any other nonstandard work arrangement.

2 Contingent work and alternative work arrangements are measured separately, so it is possible that some workers

are both contingent and working in an alternative arrangement. The survey of contingent work and alternative

employment arrangements apply only to a person’s sole or main job; for multiple job holders, this is the job in which

they usually work the most hours.

8

The BLS found from its May 2017 survey that contingent workers were equally likely to

be men as to be women, but that Hispanics were more likely to be contingent workers than

whites or blacks. Contingent workers can be found in all occupations, but about a third of all

contingent workers were in professional and related occupations, a category that includes

computer occupations. Contingent workers are more likely to be part-time, younger, and paid

less, and to receive few benefits than noncontingent workers, although half of the part-time

contingent workers would prefer a full-time job. The educational distribution of contingent

workers is somewhat bifurcated; contingent workers are more likely to be high school dropouts

and more likely to hold at least a bachelor’s degree. In May 2017, 42 percent of temporary-help-

agency workers were contingent workers, a smaller share than in past surveys. In addition,

roughly one in five on-call workers was also a contingent worker, and 15 percent of contract

company workers were also contingent workers. Only 3 percent of independent contractors were

considered contingent workers, the same percentage as workers with traditional arrangements—

i.e., those who are not in any of the alternative employment arrangements (Kosanovich 2018).

The two site states represent for the most part two sides of the national average with

respect to alternative work arrangements. For example, as shown in Appendix Table A1,

Michigan is below the national average and the state of Washington is above the national

average with respect to self-employment, contingent workers, and independent contractors. The

only category in which Michigan has a higher percentage than Washington is in workers from

temporary employment agencies. This most likely results from the large presence of the auto

industry in Michigan and the restructuring of that industry during the past two decades, a time

when many regular workers have been laid off only to be rehired by the auto companies and their

suppliers as temp workers.

9

3. INDIVIDUAL TRAINING ACCOUNTS

Individual training accounts (ITAs) are a form of vouchers that can be used by eligible

participants to apply to the cost of job training. ITAs are the primary method used by WIOA

programs to pay for training services. However, in certain circumstances, such as for on-the-job

training, customized training, and registered apprenticeship programs, a training contract from a

local WIB to a third-party provider may be used to provide training services.

3.1 Stated Objectives

The stated purpose of ITAs is “to provide the WIOA-eligible individuals with the means

to obtain the necessary training to become gainfully employed or re-employed.” This statement

echoes the wording that first described ITAs in the early years of WIA. As with WIA, WIOA

regulations require that local workforce areas provide training through ITAs, except in some

limited circumstances. These exceptions include on-the-job training or customized training for

incumbent workers provided by an employer or training provided by an organization for targeted

populations, such as those facing multiple employment barriers. Since on-the-job training and

customized training usually are provided to a group of workers within one establishment, it is not

appropriate to use individual training accounts for that purpose.

WIOA also requires local workforce areas to be accountable to performance outcomes

based on a participant’s employment and earnings after completing services. However, the

federal government authorizes states and localities to determine the nature of ITAs along the

continuum from free choice to informed or guided choice. To strike a balance between these two

requirements of maximizing choice and getting participants into jobs, local areas predominantly

follow a model of “informed customer choice.”

10

ITAs were first introduced under WIA, which required that local workforce investment

areas provide access to training that “maximizes customer choice” (WIA Title 1.B.134). The

Republican-controlled Congress wanted to move WIA more toward a model in which the

customer chooses the type of training and the provider of training services. However, the bill did

not offer much guidance on what “maximum customer choice” meant or how it could be

implemented.3 The notion at the time the bill was passed that greater choice could yield better

employment and earnings results for training participants was based more on political ideology

than on empirical evidence. It was also related to the desire by Congress to construct a market-

based system in which customers choose their providers and programs with the appropriate

information. It took at least nine years for the results of a random-assignment experiment,

sponsored by USDOL, to be released; these results shed some empirical light on which model

was most effective.4 The results leaned toward an informed-choice model, which was a

combination of four components (Wandner, 2010, p. 256):

1. Assessment and counseling to determine whether the proposed training course is both

appropriate for the customer and in a demand occupation

2. Objective information about the employment outcomes of training providers (i.e.,

Eligible Provider Lists)

3. Customer and counselor making joint decisions on training, with frontline staff acting as

guide, facilitator, and information navigator

4. Limited time and dollar value on each voucher

3 Wandner (2010) explains the political origins of vouchers under WIA in more detail, p. 264. 4 The ITA evaluation was started in 2000 but for a variety of reasons centering on the conduct of the ETA, the final

report was not released until 2011, although some of the preliminary results were known by 2009.

11

From the time the bill was passed until the evaluation results were released, the ETA did

not take a stand on whether to impose one approach over the other, but gave states and local

WIBs considerable discretion to choose along the continuum from free to informed choice. By

leaving the decision to the states and localities, the ETA effectively defaulted to the informed-

choice model, since the states and localities used that approach most often under JTPA.5

3.2 Who Can Access ITAs? What Are the Eligibility Criteria? Are Some Groups

of Workers/Persons Targeted in Particular?

Eligibility for ITAs is a three-step process. First, an individual must be registered in

either the Adult Program or the Dislocated Worker Program under WIOA by meeting program

eligibility requirements. Second, career counselors refer participants from either one of these two

programs to specific training services. Those referred to occupational training may establish an

individual training account (ITA).

The WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs provide services to eligible

participants as a “pathway to the middle class and to maintain and build skills to remain in the

middle class” (TEGL No. 19-16, p. 8). The Adult Program serves disadvantaged adults; the

Dislocated Worker Program is open primarily to those individuals who, through no fault of their

own, have lost a job with an employer.

Specific eligibility requirements for the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs are

described in WIOA legislation and clarified and refined in USDOL/ETA rules and regulations.

Most criteria are uniform across all states and local WIBs, but WIOA gives states and WIBs

discretion in defining certain terms (such as “self-sufficiency,” “unlikely to return to work,” and

5 See Wandner (2010) for more details.

12

“stopgap employment”) and in establishing criteria and the process for prioritizing services,

including training services.6

Adult Program Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility requirements for the Adult Program focus on defining low-income individuals

and the employment barriers they may face. In all states, individuals must first meet the

following criteria:7

• U.S. citizen or otherwise legally entitled to work in the United States8

• Age 18 or older

• Selective Service registration for males who are 18 years of age or older and born on or

after January 1, 1960, unless an exception is justified9

Once an individual has passed these three screens, the next step is to establish where that

person may fit in the prioritization of services. Table 1 lists the priorities as stated by the two

case study states—Michigan and Washington. The criteria are nearly identical between the

states, and priorities one through three are virtually the same. The term “statutory priority” refers

to the priority that is mandated by the WIOA legislation, which must be followed by all those

receiving Adult funds. The fourth criterion is left to the discretion of states and local WIBs to

establish additional priority groups.

6 State workforce agencies and the USDOL conduct audits periodically of WIBs to ensure that the eligibility

requirements determined by the USDOL/ETA are followed. These audits are rigorous, and any inconsistencies

found in administering the eligibility determination process can lead to reportable findings and even sanctions. 7 Nondiscrimination provisions that apply to the public workforce system prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex,

among other things. Although gender identity is not an explicitly protected basis under the applicable federal laws,

discrimination based upon gender identity, gender expression, and sex stereotyping has been interpreted to be a form

of prohibited sex discrimination, including under laws that apply to federally assisted employment, training, and

education programs and activities (USDOL 2015). 8 WIOA has determined that participation under WIOA programs is available to citizens and nationals of the United

States; lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, refugees, asylees and parolees; and other immigrants authorized

by the Attorney General to work in the United States, including DACA participants with employment authorization. 9 WIOA gives the state the authority to establish policies and procedures relating to verifying WIOA eligibility, as

long as the policies and procedures are consistent with the WIOA, the WIOA regulations, and other federal statutes.

The local WIBs must in turn establish local policies and procedures to verify and document participant eligibility for

the WIOA programs.

13

More concretely, in both states, veterans are given first priority for services, which means

that veterans are the first in line for training and for career services, both of which are heavily

staff-intensive services. The reason veterans do not dominate the WIOA services is that there are

not that many veterans requesting services, and not all of these request training and the other

staff-assisted services. For example, in PY2016, Michigan recorded only 103 veterans exiting its

Adult Programs out of a total of 5,400 exiters that year. Even though a higher percentage of

veterans who exited (60 percent of veterans versus 54 percent of the total) received training, that

amounted to only 60 veterans out of nearly 3,000 Adult exiters who received training services.

Furthermore, the WIOA Adult Program is intended primarily for low-income individuals with

significant employment barriers. Of the 103 veterans exiting the Adult Program in PY2016, 64

were determined to be low income. That’s about 60 percent of the veterans, but those 64 low-

income veterans accounted for only 1.7 percent of the 3,700 low-income Adult exiters.

Therefore, without priorities given to veterans, they may not receive the same level of services in

Michigan because of the large number of low-income exiters.

The state of Washington presents a somewhat different scenario with respect to veterans

than Michigan. First, Washington has five times the number of veterans exiting from the Adult

Program as does Michigan. This is most likely due to the large military bases in Washington and

the state’s naval facilities. Second, unlike in Michigan, the percentage of Adult exiters who were

low income roughly matched the percentage of low-income veterans, at about 25 percent. It is

likely, therefore, that without priority being given to veterans, they may fall even further down

the queue for services.

14

Much attention is given to veterans across the political spectrum, which is reflected in

priorities within government programs. Therefore, even though their numbers are not that large

in either state, veterans still receive high priority within the workforce programs.

State governors may set additional priorities. For example, the governor of the state of

Washington has determined that services funded through the WIOA funds that the governor’s

office has discretion over will be prioritized along the same lines as services funded by the Adult

Program, with one exception: the unemployed are explicitly included as the priority in the

second group, whereas the second priority for Adult funds states that the unemployed may be

included. Consequently, for the governor’s discretionary funds, priority will first be given to

eligible veterans and spouses, then to unemployed individuals, next to low-income individuals,

and finally to other Washington job seekers.

A nonstandard worker may be eligible for training under the Adult Program if that

worker’s nonstandard work activities place him or her in the low-income category. Nonstandard

work may pay less than regular employment, and the hours may be shorter, leading to both less

pay and a greater likelihood of being determined to be a low-income individual. So long as

individuals meet the eligibility standards for the Adult Program, including those who are self-

employed or underemployed, they are eligible for training services, and low-income participants

must be given training, according to the legislation.

15

Table 1 Priority of Services Funded under the Adult Program for the Two Case-Study

States

Priority Michigan Washington

First Covered person (veterans and

eligible spouses) who are also

funded in the groups given statutory

priority for the WIOA Adult formula

funds

Covered persons (veterans and eligible

spouses) who are also in the groups of

low income, recipients of public

assistance, or basic-skill deficiencies

(those given statutory priority)

Second Noncovered persons (i.e.,

individuals who are not veterans and

their spouses) who are included in

the WIOA’s priority groups

Individuals (noncovered persons) who

are included in the statutory priority

group (low-income who may be

unemployed individuals), recipients of

public assistance, or basic-skill

deficiencies

Third Veterans and eligible spouses who

are not included in the WIOA’s

priority groups

Covered persons (veterans and eligible

spouses) who are not low income and not

basic skills deficient

Fourth Priority populations established by

the governor and/or local WIBs

Local WIBs may establish additional

priority groups beyond the minimum

WIOA Adult eligibility

NOTE: Michigan priorities are described in State of Michigan (2018), pp. 23–24; Washington State priorities are

described in State of Washington (2017a), p. 13.

SOURCE: Author’s compilation.

Dislocated Worker Program Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility requirements for the Dislocated Worker Program are basically the same in

the two states. The major difference is that Washington emphasizes dislocated veterans and their

spouses by giving them their own categories, whereas Michigan includes veteran spouses under

the general category of displaced homemakers.

The basic criterion for eligibility for the Dislocated Worker Program is whether the

individual has been terminated, laid off, or received notice of termination or layoff and is

determined to be unlikely to return to his or her previous industry or occupation. A more

complete decision tree is displayed in Table A2, located in the appendix. The eligibility criteria

have provisions for people who are self-employed and who are displaced homemakers (persons

16

who are dependent on the income of another family member but who no longer can rely on that

person for support). States have discretion on how to define stopgap employment and

underemployment for the purpose of eligibility. Both Michigan and Washington states share the

same definition for the underemployed, but Michigan is silent on stopgap employment (State of

Michigan 2018, p. 22). The two states define underemployment as being employed less than full-

time but actively seeking full-time employment, or as being employed in a position that is

inadequate with respect to one’s documented skills and training. Washington defines stopgap

employment as temporary work which individuals accept only because they have been laid off or

terminated from the customary work for which their training, experience, or work history

qualifies them (State of Washington 2017a, p. 18).

While eligibility for the Dislocated Worker Program is structured around the traditional

workplace arrangement, workers in nonstandard work arrangements can become eligible for

training under this program if they are self-employed, underemployed, or perhaps fall within the

displaced homemaker category, in which they may have engaged in casual employment while

technically not working outside the home. In addition, definitions of stopgap employment and

underemployment are important in considering the likelihood that workers from nonstandard

work arrangements are eligible for training under WIOA.

3.3 Eligibility for Training

Once an individual has passed the screening for either of the two programs and is

enrolled in that program, staff from the local WIB determines whether that individual is eligible

for training services. The individual goes through a battery of assessments, including in-person

interviews, evaluations or assessments, and career planning that is guided by information on the

local labor market and on training provider performance. In addition, to be eligible for training

17

from WIOA, individuals must demonstrate that they are unable to obtain grant assistance for

training from other government programs, such as Pell Grants or assistance under the Trade

Adjustment Assistance program, or that the funding from such programs is insufficient to meet

the individual’s training needs.

Michigan and Washington follow similar criteria to determine eligibility for training

services. According to state rules, which follow ETA guidelines, training services may be made

available to employed and unemployed workers who are registered for either the Adult Program

or the Dislocated Worker Program. Enrollees seeking training services in the Adult Program are

subject to the same priorities set for any staff-assisted service provided through that program.

Under WIOA Section 134(c)(3)(A), a participant may receive training services if local

WIB staff determines that the person

1. is unlikely or unable to obtain or retain employment that leads to economic self-

sufficiency or wages comparable to or higher than wages from previous employment

through career services,

2. needs training services to obtain or retain employment leading to economic self-

sufficiency or wages comparable to or higher than wages from previous employment, and

3. has the skills and qualifications to participate successfully in training services.

The third requirement for eligibility, having the skills and qualifications to successfully

participate in training, assures that participants are highly likely to complete their training

endeavors by demonstrating they possess the requisite skills and the financial resources to

complete the program. Financial resources include not only the ability to afford the direct cost of

the program, with the aid of a voucher, but also the ability to support themselves and their

families during the time they are engaged in the program, without any additional public

18

assistance.10 In addition to these three criteria, a person must select a program of training that is

directly linked to the employment opportunities in the local area or planning region, or in another

area to which the individual is willing to locate, and that person must also choose an eligible

training provider, or ETP (State of Michigan 2018, p. 9).

3.4 Eligibility for Individual Training Accounts

ITAs may be granted to individuals who have been referred to occupational training

programs. Occupational training programs are typically classroom-style training in which a

participant works toward a credential, certification, or degree. Other training programs, such as

customized training, are more group oriented, in which employed workers receive training

targeted to the needs of the business for which they work. Customized training is often granted

by the state, and in the case of Michigan it is a competitive process. ITAs are used only for

“individualized” training programs.

In keeping with maximizing consumer choice, the selection of a training program and a

provider is made jointly by both the case manager and the participant, with the goal of achieving

employment at the completion of training that will lead to a long-term career. However,

individuals receiving ITAs may use the voucher to access any training program that covers skills

in demand by local employers and that is offered by an eligible training provider. Local service-

center staff may inform and facilitate career decisions, but the final decision rests with the

individual participant, according to the state policy guidelines and to the counselors and

administrators who were interviewed for this paper. Furthermore, each local WIB has discretion

to establish a range of amounts and/or a maximum dollar amount available for an ITA.

10 A training participant may receive public assistance from other sources, such as TANF, food stamps (the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); WIOA training

programs do not provide additional cash assistance, nor did training programs under WIA.

19

To establish an ITA, a participant of either the Adult or Dislocated Worker Program must

first be referred to training services. If it is determined that the participant needs upskilling or

related training, that person must then determine the type of program that he or she would like to

pursue. As will be discussed in more detail later in the paper, an individual must provide

documentation that the program of training will qualify the recipient for a job that is already

posted or “in demand,” and that the provider is qualified, according to the criteria required for

providers to be placed on the Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL).

In making these decisions, a participant receives counsel from a case worker at a local

one-stop service center. By determining the program and provider, the cost of the program, the

type of credential (certification, degree, etc.), and the length of time in the program is also

determined. For example, in a local workforce investment area in Michigan, a four-to-six-week

certified nursing assistant (CNA) program costs roughly $1,000, whereas a four-to-six week

course to obtain a commercial truck driver’s license costs around $5,000. Therefore, an ITA for

the individual pursuing a CNA certificate would be established at roughly $1,000, and an ITA

for the individual pursuing a truck driver license would be around $5,000. For this reason,

voucher amounts are not uniform but rather are related to the type of training.

3.5 ITA Voucher Amounts

The amount of funding available under an ITA varies by program and location. Programs

differ by state and WIB, and so do their costs. Two individuals may choose different programs

with different costs, as illustrated in the previous section, and therefore receive different amounts

of funding. In addition, ITAs typically place a limit on the ITA voucher of between $5,000 to

$10,000, but the amount may vary considerably by state and local WIB. If the cost of a desired

program exceeds the limit imposed by a WIB, participants are permitted to supplement ITA

20

funds with their own funds or other government grants. However, I spoke with local counselors

and administrators in both states, who told me that only rarely does an individual supplement

ITA vouchers with his or her own money to pay the cost of the training that person desires.

Furthermore, one policy reads, “Adequate sources of family income (spousal income, UI

benefits, etc.) or assets must be identified and compared to budgeted family expenditures over

the training period. Participants who lack the financial resources to complete training are not

suitable candidates for training.”11 Many local policies state that participants must utilize other

funding sources first to pay the costs of training, such as state-supplied training funds, Trade

Adjustment Assistance, Federal Pell Grants (established under Title IV of the Higher Education

Act of 1965), and scholarships, before WIOA funds can be authorized to support training costs.

In addition to covering direct training costs, families may have to demonstrate that they can

support themselves while a member of the family foregoes earned income to pursue training.

Despite this, few holders of ITA use other public funds, nor do they supplement the public funds

with their own resources, according to correspondence with local WIB administrators.12 Case

managers must document it in the case notes if the participant is unable to obtain grant

assistance.13

11 WIOA Individual Training Account Policy and Agreement, Berrien, Cass, Van Buren Michigan Works!, March

17, 2018, and conversations with program staff. One WIB explicitly stated in its policy manual that individuals who

did not have the financial means (e.g., income and assets) to pay for training were not eligible to receive training. 12 Email correspondence with Amy Myers, Policy and Planning Manager for Michigan Works! Southwest, states

that while customers can supplement public funding with their own funds, she is not aware of any such instance in

the decade she has been administering training programs (correspondence of February 22, 2019). One reason for this

is that vouchers are funded to cover the cost of training. Another reason is that customers are aware of the cost of the

program and how much the voucher covers before entering the training program. 13 Analysis of administrative data by the author shows that for those receiving training services through either the

Adult Program or the Dislocated Worker Program, only a small percentage receive Pell Grants. For the Adult

Program, only 6.5 percent of those receiving training use Pell grants, and for the Dislocated Worker Program, only

3.0 percent use them.

21

There is no lifetime limit for the use of a voucher, although some ITA guidelines state

that participants must complete a program within a specified period—in one case, four years.14 In

most cases, it is understood by all parties that the training leads to immediate employment after

completing the course. A staff member from a local WIB in Michigan shared that in most cases,

even before a participant finishes a course, the business services staff of the local one-stop center

has lined up a job for that person. With a job in hand, the person has little need then to return to

the one-stop service center in pursuit of further training.15

The voucher amount may change if the cost of a training course changes during the time

a participant is enrolled. This could happen if the cost of supplies or books changes, for example.

The funds can be used only to pay for training costs, such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies, as

described in the regulations. None of the funds may be used to compensate the individual for

time off work, child care expenses while attending class, or transportation costs. Although

extensive rules and regulations have been codified regarding the use of ITAs, all guidelines

established by states and local WIBs include a phrase stipulating that any exceptions to the

guidelines must be preapproved by the executive director of the local WIA or designee.

Since ITA amounts are determined by the program of study selected, WIBs rarely publish

the limits of WIBs on their websites or other readily available documents. I inquired at several

WIBs in Michigan, and only two were willing to reveal their limits. One shared documents that

14 Michigan Works! Region 7B Consortium, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Individual

Training Account (ITA) Policy, January 4, 2017. While there are state and federal guidelines, the local WIBs have

final authority. 15 Conversation with local WIB staff member, October 16, 2018.

22

stated that the spending limit was $6,000, and another cited local policy that set the limit at

$10,000.16

In Washington, the limit on ITAs varies from $3,500 to $7,000 for a maximum two-year

program.17 One WIB bases the limits on up to six quarters of training, for which it offers

$7,000.18 That WIB offers some exceptions: “awards exceeding the $7,000 or time limit of two

years can be awarded to a customer only if an exception is first recommended by the

employment counselor and approved by the Workforce Council.” For the exception to be

approved, justification must be provided supporting the additional dollars or duration needed for

the individual to attain or retain livable-wage employment, or to make significant wage

progression.

3.6 ITA Funding

ITAs are funded under WIOA, which allots federal funds by formula to individual WIBs

through their respective states. For Program Year 2016 (which includes the second half of 2016

and the first half of 2017), the federal government allotted to states, the District of Columbia, and

U.S. territories a total of $785.2 million for the Adult Program and $990.5 million for the

Dislocated Worker Program. Local WIBs determine how much of the general funds are devoted

to training services, and more specifically to ITAs. States approve the budgets of the local WIBs,

although there is some discretion in the use of funds that may differ from the budgeted amount,

as needs are revealed during the program year. In addition, WIOA allows some fungibility in the

16 This information comes from conversations with administrators at two Michigan WIBs on September 10, 2018.

The documents they shared are not posted on their websites, and the information is not publicly available except

upon request, although it is codified in the WIBs’ local regulations. 17 Workforce Development Council of Seattle–King County, Policy No. 03-2000, Individual Training Account,

January 17, 2017; and conversations with the executive director of the Workforce Training and Education

Coordinating Council, Eleni Papadakis. 18 Pacific Mountain Workforce Development, WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Individual Training Accounts

(ITAs), Policy No. 5100, July, 7, 2016.

23

use of these funds, in that states and local WIBs can use some of the Adult funds for Dislocated

Worker participants and vice versa, depending upon local needs.

In total, states receive more than $6.9 billion for the six core workforce development

programs, of which the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs are part, and approximately $3.6

billion in federal formula funding for six partner programs, for a total of $10.5 billion.19 States

and local WIBs can also receive an additional $191 million, appropriated for competitive grants;

but states and/or local WIBs must apply for the grants, and only a small percentage of those who

apply actually receive funding (hence the term “competitive”).

Funds for the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs, and the other Core and Partner

programs, are allotted to states through formulae that account for a state’s population and in

some cases its share of the nation’s number of unemployed. Consequently, the amount of

funding received by states correlates highly with a state’s population and size of its civilian labor

force and, for programs like the Dislocated Worker Program, with a state’s share of unemployed

workers. Therefore, California, the most populous state with a population of 39.7 million in 2018

and a share of total unemployed of 13.8 percent, received the most money in PY2016: a total of

$898 million for WIOA Core programs and another $788 million for formula appropriations,

totaling $1.7 billion. Wyoming, the least populous state with a population of only 573,000 and a

share of the total unemployed of 0.19 percent, received the least amount, totaling $28.8 million.

While California received substantially more in total appropriations, Wyoming received around

$8 more per person and per employed person, and $450 more per unemployed person, than did

California.

19 The appropriations numbers come from TEGL 17-15 (USDOL 2016) and were compiled in Council of State

Governments (2017). The core programs include the three WIOA programs, the Wagner-Peyser Employment

Service, Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Adult Education and Literacy Programs.

24

The two study-site states were allotted federal funds in similar proportions. Michigan has

a population of nearly 10 million, an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent (September 2017), and

229,507 unemployed, according to the BLS. Washington State has a population of 7.5 million,

an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent (September 2017), and 177,609 unemployed. According to

the formula, which includes other factors in addition to population and unemployment, Michigan

received total WIOA funding for the six Core programs of $237.4 million, and Washington

received $140.2 million. Breaking down the numbers to specific WIOA programs, Michigan

received $27.2 million for the Adult Program and $36.2 million for the Dislocated Worker

Program; Washington received $17.7 million for the Adult Program and $22 million for the

Dislocated Worker Program.

Not all WIOA funds allotted to states are used for training services. States and local

WIBs have discretion over how the funds are used locally across services, principally career

services and training services, which are the two broad categories of services in which staff are

used intensively. For the most recent period for which expenditures data are available for all

states (July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017), Michigan spent one-third of its WIOA funds (Adult

and Dislocated Worker Programs combined), and Washington spent one-fifth of its WIOA funds

on training services. The remainder was spent on career services, except for a very small portion

(less than 5 percent) that is spent on administration costs.

As shown in Table 2, Michigan provides training to about the same percentage of exiters

in its two WIOA adult programs—54.4 percent of exiters of the WIOA Adult Program and 51.5

percent of exiters of the Dislocated Worker Program.20 The state of Washington provides

training to very few of the exiters of the Adult Program (9.3 percent) but close to half (45.8

20 An exiter is a participant who has completed the assigned services and has left, or exited, the program, such as the

Adult or Dislocated Worker Program. A participant is still enrolled in the program and is receiving services.

25

percent) of the exiters of the Dislocated Worker Program. For both states and programs, well

over half of those exiters receiving training established an ITA.

Table 2 Number and Percentage of Exiters Receiving Training and ITAs by WIOA for the

Two Site-Study States, PY2016

State

Adult Dislocated Worker

Exiters Training ITA %

training

%

ITA

Exiters Training ITA %

training

%

ITA

Michigan 5,386 2,931 1,931 54.4 65.9 2,435 1,254 963 51.5 76.8

Washington 7,652 713 483 9.3 67.7 2,527 1,157 768 45.8 66.4

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

Nevertheless, the percentage of exiters with ITAs does not necessarily correspond with

the percentage of training funds spent on ITAs. Although the central accounting systems for

states or the USDOL do not record how much a state or local WIB spends on ITAs, a local WIB

in Michigan shared recent information on the amount it spends on ITAs:21 of the $261,000 spent

on training under the Dislocated Worker Program in PY2017, $98,000 (or 38 percent) was spent

on ITAs; and of the $351,000 spent on training under the Adult Program, $124,000 (or 35

percent) was spent on ITAs. For neither program did this percentage come close to the

percentage of exiters establishing ITAs, as displayed in Table 2. Obviously, the differences are

due to differences in the cost of training services contracted through ITAs and the cost of other

training services provided by the local WIBs.

3.7 Who Administers the Scheme, and Who Manages the Funds?

The administration of ITAs falls to the state agencies that administer and oversee WIOA

grants along with the local WIBs, which determine, through a set of eligibility criteria, who

21 WIOA has just begun to record the total amount spent on training services, whereas WIA did not. However, the

amount spent on different types of training is not centrally recorded and compiled.

26

receives an ITA. The number and types of state agencies that oversee and administer WIOA

programs and funds varies by state. The two study sites are at opposite ends of a spectrum

ranging from centralized control by one state entity to decentralized control by multiple state

entities. Michigan has a relatively centralized administration of WIOA at the state level, whereas

Washington arguably has the most decentralized system of any state.

Michigan recently restructured the agencies responsible for workforce development by

creating the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, which oversees the WIOA

programs and other public workforce activities. In contrast, Washington has a much more

complex system of agencies administering WIOA programs. Seven public state agencies

disburse federal funding for separate workforce training programs. One of these agencies

disburses the WIOA dollars to the state’s 12 local WIBs. The idea is to bring together at the state

level agencies that provide workforce development, economic development, community college

and K–12 education, and businesses. To help coordinate these state agencies, the Workforce

Training and Education Coordinating Board (WTECB) coordinates activities among the 14

member agencies. The three primary responsibilities of the WTECB are to 1) advise the

governor and legislature on workforce development policy, 2) ensure the state’s workforce

services and programs work together, and 3) evaluate the performance of Washington’s key

workforce programs.

However, most of the daily administration of the ITAs is carried out by the local WIBs.

They determine within the guidelines of the USDOL/ETA and their state who is eligible for

ITAs, they contract with third parties to provide the in-person counseling at the one-stop career

centers, and they ensure that the training programs provide the skills demanded by local

employers and that the providers are eligible to receive WIOA funds through the ITAs.

27

The local WIBs receive and manage the funds with oversight from the state and the

USDOL. Except for the governor’s set-aside, which can equal 15 percent of the funds allotted to

each state, the remaining funds are sent directly to the local WIBs. The local WIBs use these

funds to contract with third-party providers, including establishing vouchers for ITAs, which can

be used to fund training of individuals holding ITAs at third-party training providers. By law,

local WIBs are not allowed to provide direct services to customers; all services, including the

operation of service centers, must be contracted to a qualified third party. Contracts are typically

for one to two years. All activities of local WIBs are audited regularly by the state agency

overseeing the programs and by the USDOL. State agencies are audited by the USDOL.

3.8 Types of Training

The U.S. Department of Labor asks states and local WIBs to record six types of job

training relevant to the WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs. These six types include

1) on-the-job training, 2) skill upgrading, 3) entrepreneurial training, 4) English as a second

language, 5) customized training, and 6) other occupational training. Training type 6—other

occupational training—is the one most frequently listed by states; it makes up 59 percent of the

training. In many respects, the use of ITAs depends upon the types of training offered by states.22

The type of training offered varies by WIOA program and by state, as shown in Table 3.

Each state offers, nearly exclusively, two types of training. Michigan focuses on on-the-job

training (1) and skill-upgrade training (2), whereas Washington provides customized training (5)

and other occupational training (6). In Michigan, 85 percent of the exiters received either on-the-

job training or skill-upgrading training. ITAs were by far the predominant method of funding

22 The training categories listed here are those delineated in the WIOA database referred to as the Participant

Individual Record Layout (PIRL), which includes the administrative records of all WIOA participants.

28

skill-upgrading training, as 98 percent of exiters who received this type of training established an

ITA. Only 49 percent of those exiters receiving on-the-job training established an ITA. In

Washington, WIOA funds supported two types of training almost exclusively—customized

training and other occupational training—with four times the number of exiters receiving other

occupational training as receiving customized training. Eighty-four percent of those who

received other occupational training established an ITA, compared to only 8 percent for

customized training. Tables A5 to A10 show the use of training and ITAs by WIBs within the

two study states.

Table 3 Training Types by WIOA Program and State, PY2016

Training type Adult Dislocated Worker

Michigan Washington Michigan Washington

Count % Count % Count % Count %

1 679 23.2 7 0.98 434 35.7 8 0.69

2 1,363 46.6 632 52.1

3 6 0.84 69 5.0

4 2 0.28 1 0.08

5 367 12.6 156 21.9 23 1.9 206 17.8

6 497 17.0 540 45.7 123 0.1 860 74.3

Training 2,931 54.4 713 9.3 1,254 50.7 1,157 45.8

No training 2,455 45.6 6,939 90.7 1,181 49.3 1,370 54.2

Total exiters 5,386 100 7,652 100 2,435 100 2,527 100

NOTE: Training types are numbered in the table and correspond to the numbering in the text. The types include 1)

on-the-job training, 2) skill upgrade training, 3) entrepreneurial training, 4) English-as-a-second-language training,

5) customized training, and 6) other occupational skills training. Some states do not offer certain types of training.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

3.9 Who Decides on What Training Should Be Pursued?

Holders of an ITA choose the training program and the training provider. They receive

guidance from the one-stop center’s case manager as the two together develop an individual

employment plan and obtain relevant labor market information on the occupations and skills in

demand by local employers.

29

Eligible Training Providers

A critical component of the informed-choice model, adopted by WIOA for ITAs, is the

Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL). The list is compiled by each state, with local WIB

discretion, to determine eligibility. In keeping with the basic premise of informed customer

choice that customers need to be supported by high-quality information and guidance, WIOA

legislation, and the WIA legislation before it, specify two objectives of the ETPL: 1) define the

training providers that Adult and Dislocated Worker participants may consider, and 2) serve as a

resource to research the effectiveness of training providers. Obviously, there is some tension in

these two objectives: the first excludes providers that are determined to be “unqualified”

according to the criteria set forth by ETA, and the second requires a list of good and not-as-good

providers to provide a sound basis for the participant to research a suitable provider. Both

objectives, taken together, establish a market-based system of training providers in which

customers are offered critical information about the quality and nature of the available training

programs, with the unacceptable training programs dropped from the list of eligible providers.

Under ITAs, a customer’s decision is driven by “informed choice,” rather than by contractual

agreements and case managers, which was the case before WIA. Consequently, in most if not all

states, the customer (along with his or her case manager) determines how well the provider may

meet the training needs of the customer, based upon the information provided by the state.

The establishment of Eligible Training Provider Lists (ETPLs) took time to implement.

Providers were not eager to divulge information required by the WIA or WIOA legislation.

Community colleges and for-profit training providers were particularly slow to comply. The U.S.

Department of Labor in 2014 funded an evaluation conducted by IMPAQ of compliance by

states and found that only a third of the states had satisfied most of the ETPL requirements. One

30

of the most onerous requirements was the data requirement for calculating the rate of completion

by program participants and their rate of employment afterward. Most states required that each

provider submit the names of their students to the state so the state Unemployment Insurance

agency could match the students to their administrative records and determine who was

employed. Because of the burden placed on both the training provider and state agencies, 39

states in 2014, according to the study, requested and received waivers from completing the

requirements of the ETPL. Michigan was one of the states that received a waiver, whereas

Washington did not request one.

For training providers to be included on the ETPL, their program must be certified by the

state and by local WIBs as meeting acceptable performance levels on a variety of outcome

measures.23 While these criteria vary by state and local area, the following is a representative list:

1. The percentage of all participants who completed training

2. The percentage of all participants who obtained unsubsidized employment

3. The average earnings at placement of all participants

4. The percentage of WIOA-funded participants who completed training and obtained

unsubsidized employment

5. The percentage of WIOA-funded completers who were employed six months after the

start of employment

6. The average wages received by WIOA-funded completers, measured six months after

the first day of employment

23 Training providers in states receiving vouchers were given time to make this information available, and some

performance elements are still missing from the training providers’ profiles, even though they are on the ETPL.

31

7. If applicable, the percentage of WIOA-funded completers who obtained a license or

certificate, an academic degree or its equivalent, or other measures of skills (Decker

and Perez-Johnson 2004)

Of the seven measures, three apply to all students in a program’s prior cohort of trainees,

and four apply to prior cohorts who received WIOA funding. These criteria must be met for each

program for which the provider is seeking eligibility.

For example, the state of Washington has established certification criteria for training

providers that closely follow the list above (State of Washington 2017b, pp. 2–3).24 In order for

the program of a training provider to be eligible, the program must meet or exceed certain

performance levels. First, a program must meet or exceed each of the following minimum

performance floors:

1. A completion rate of 20 percent;

2. An employment rate of 50 percent;

3. An earnings level of $3,943 in a calendar quarter.

The relevant time period for each performance measure varies by type. Completion rate

measures whether an individual who enrolled in a program completed the program at the time

the coursework was completed. Employment rate is calculated using UI wage records, which are

recorded quarterly by the state UI agency. According to the ETA-9171 form, which all states

much complete and submit to the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training

Administration, the employment rate is measured in two time periods: the percentage of program

completers who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from the

24 This WIOA policy took effect July 1, 2017.

32

program of study, and unsubsidized employment in the fourth quarter after exiting the program

of study.25

Failure to achieve any one of these minimum floors would make the program ineligible.

In addition, the program must achieve at least an average of 100 percent of the following

performance targets:

1. A completion rate of 30 percent

2. An employment rate of 65 percent

3. An earnings level of $4,965 in a calendar quarter

where the average is calculated by dividing the actual performance on each measure by the target

for that measure, adding the results together, and dividing by the number of measures for which

there is sufficient data.

For example, suppose a program meets the minimum requirements listed above (e.g., 20

percent completion rate, 50 percent employment rate, and the appropriate earnings threshold) and

exceeds the first target by 20 percentage points (50 percent completion rate) but misses the

employment rate target by 5 percentage points (60 percent) and the earnings by $465. In this

case, the average of the three measures (actual divided by target) is 116.5 percent. Even though

the performance of the program falls short in two of the three measures, the high actual

completion rate relative to target carries the other two, and the composite performance measure

exceeds 100 percent. Therefore, a program that meets or exceeds each of the minimum

performance floors and averages at least 100 percent of the performance targets is determined to

have satisfied the state’s required performance levels.

25 Form ETA-9171, pp. 4, 5. The state is required by WIOA legislation to provide all the data related to WIOA

participants, including WIOA participant levels, demographics, WIOA participant outcomes, and WIOA-related

costs. In turn, training providers are required to report the data required and provided by the state for the submission

of the ETA-9171. These employment measures are compiled by the state UI agency, using UI wage records.

33

If a program meets or exceeds the minimum performance floors but does not achieve an

average of 100 percent of the performance targets, then the program’s actual performance on

each measure shall be adjusted for each measure by a statistical regression model. This model

takes into account some of the demographic characteristics of the program participants and one

or more economic characteristics of the county or counties in which the program participants

reside. The regression-adjustment model relates performance outcomes to factors that are

considered to be outside the control of local administrators. Local administrators, for example,

are not expected to control local labor market conditions, nor are they expected to “game” the

system by allowing only those participants with a high probability of finding employment to

enter the programs. Therefore, by “subtracting out” those factors, the model can reduce the

tendency for performance measures to be correlated with factors that may affect performance but

are outside an administrator’s control.

If application of the adjustment models results in a program’s average performance

meeting or exceeding 100 percent of the performance targets, and the program meets or exceeds

each of the minimum performance floors (without regression adjustment), then the program shall

be determined to have satisfied the state required performance levels.

If a program fails to meet the eligibility requirements for earnings, the program may still

qualify by meeting the requirements for hourly wages. Washington’s requirements for hourly

wages are as follows:

• Minimum hourly wage floor = $10.64 per hour

• Performance target = $11.76 per hour.

While all local Workforce Development Councils (WDCs) (as the local WIBs are called in

Washington) are required to use this procedure, they are given the discretion to establish higher

performance levels and/or additional criteria for eligibility.

34

Michigan follows similar criteria in establishing eligibility for training providers, as

specified in Section 122 of the WIOA legislation. The state requires the following minimum

thresholds for performance standards related to labor market outcomes or educational outcomes:

• Unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from program of 67

percent

• Unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after exit of 67 percent

• Median earnings during the second quarter of $6,108

• Credentials attainment of 44 percent

Other nonperformance criteria are also required, such as the quality of a training program,

including a program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential, and the timeliness and

accuracy of training providers’ performance reports. Unlike the state of Washington, Michigan

does not have strict thresholds for program completion rates. Also, Michigan’s labor market

outcomes are identical with the common performance measures required by USDOL in

measuring the performance of workforce programs, whereas Washington’s are more general and

not tied to the strict definition of the common measures.26

Table 4 Example of Information from an Eligible Training Provider for a Specific Training

Program in Michigan and Washington

Information Michigan Washington

Nurse’s assistant/aide Certified nursing assistant

Provider Comstock Public Schools Health Professionals Institute

Provider website http://comstockps.org http//healthprofessionalsinstitute.com

Type of provider (not listed) Private career school—cert/dipl

Program description This 80-hour course meets all

the requirements of the State

of Michigan certified nurse

aide training program. A

combination classroom,

laboratory….

A nursing assistant training program

to prepare the student for helping

care for residents in a health care

facility, under the direction and

supervision of a licensed nurse. This

five-week course…

26 The common performance measures are entered employment, job retention, and earnings. All WIBs and states are

held accountable to these three measures. Each year, states are given performance targets based on these three

measures and a few others. If the actual common measures fall below these targets, then the state could be

sanctioned. So, most states and WIBs pay close attention to these performance measures. See section 4.2 for a more

detailed description.

35

Contact name and number (listed) (listed)

Admission requirements Students must be able to read at

a ninth-grade level to be

successful in the course.

Auxiliary aids and services are

available. …

Criminal background check.

Reading/writing English and

successful completion …

Credential earned CNA certificate NAC certification

Program format In-person (not listed)

Sources of financial assistance

accepted

Individual training accounts,

payments from Michigan

Works!

(not listed)

Estimated waiting period to enter

program

1 month (not listed)

Program duration (clock hours) (not completed) 118

Length of training 3–5 weeks

License fee for employment No No

Program cost ($) 0.00 650.00

Cost of books and supplies ($) No 136.65

Other costs ($) 15.00 (for entrance exam)

Internship/externship amount No (not listed)

New program No (not listed)

Completion rate (%) 93.4 97.0

Number of graduates in last year 170 36

Employment rate (%) 59.7 70

Training-related placement rate (not available) (not listed)

Average starting wage ($/hr.) 12 11.09

Median quarterly earnings ($) (not available until 2020) 5,546

Credential attainment rate (not available) (not listed)

Student characteristics

Gender (female) (not listed) 82%

Race (not listed) (listed)

Age (not listed) (listed)

Prior education (not listed) (listed)

SOURCE: Obtained from the two states’ websites: www.jobs.talent.org and www.careerbridge.wa.gov.

Both states compile the information regarding details of the program and provider and

performance measures and list that information on their websites. For Michigan, the website is

called Pure Michigan Talent Connect (jobs.mitalent.org), and for Washington, it is called Career

Bridge (careerbridge.wa.gov). Table 4 compares the information elements for a similar training

36

program in the two states. Washington’s website includes more information than Michigan’s,

primarily with respect to student performance and characteristics. The websites are designed so

that the participant can then compare the relevant information of one provider side by side with

that of another provider to determine the best training to meet the customer’s needs. Even though

not all information may be available for any one program, the information that is provided allows

prospective trainees to compare providers and programs, to assist them in choosing the program

that may best meet their needs and satisfy the program requirements.

In-Demand Occupations

As part of the determination process for training services, a customer must identify

training that will qualify him or her for a job in a high-demand occupation in the local labor

market. The purpose of designating in-demand occupations is to help individuals find training

that will lead to a job. Local WIBs define an in-demand occupation, since it is local employers

who are posting jobs and hiring workers. However, there is no precise definition of an in-demand

occupation; local WIBs use different definitions and various sources of information to make the

determination.

Various sources are used to determine occupations that are considered in-demand by

local employers. Michigan’s Bureau of Labor Market Information and Strategic Initiatives

compiles what it refers to as Michigan’s “Hot 50” occupations, which lists the top 50

occupations by projected growth rate between 2016 and 2026, earnings, and job openings

(Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget 2018). The state of Washington

provides something similar, but it is connected to the Career Bridge website, at which

participants can retrieve information for each of 600 or so occupations regarding projected

37

growth, earnings, and number of openings. The website designates the occupations that are

considered in-demand.

Michigan also compiles three lists of in-demand industries. One is composed of high-

growth, high-wage industries, the second is for existing in-demand industries, and the third is

made up of emerging in-demand industries. All three are constructed for the State Workforce

Plan, required by WIOA. The first is defined as industries that are high growth and high wage in

the long term (10-year projection), the second list features industries that display high

employment growth (numeric and percent) in the past three years and are projected to grow in

the short run (until 2025), pay well, have a sizable contribution to the state’s gross state product,

and show high input-output employment multipliers. Occupations within industries on these lists

are considered in-demand by at least state employers, if not national employers.

Of course, many WIBs send business representatives to visit local employers to glean

firsthand their employment needs. In addition, local WIBs use companies, such as Burning Glass

or the Conference Board, to collect current job postings in their areas to determine the relative

demand. These two companies use algorithms to scrape the Internet and mitigate duplications of

job postings listed on web-based sites, such as Glass Door, Linked-In, Craig’s List, and many

others. In this way, local WIBs can offer current information to participants as to the relative

number of job openings for various occupations.

3.10 What Type of Qualifications Does the Training Lead To?

Participants of the two WIOA programs who have ITAs enroll in training programs that

lead to the following educational outcomes:

1. An industry-recognized certificate or certification

2. License recognized by the state involved or the federal government

38

3. An associate degree from a community college

4. A baccalaureate degree

5. A community college certificate of completion

6. Employment

7. Measurable skills gain

The program of study, or qualifications, received by type of training is shown in Tables

5a–5d for the WIOA Adult Program and Dislocated Worker Program, for all those who receive

training and for only those who hold an ITA. In Michigan, four types of training predominate:

on-the-job training (1), skill upgrading (2), customized training (5), and other occupational

training (6).27 As shown across tables 6b and 6d, the majority of ITAs are used in conjunction

with skill-upgrading training (2), about 58 percent of total ITAs. Training outcomes are

dominated by a program of study leading to an industry-recognized certificate or certification

(category 1). This training outcome is achieved most often by those who participate in the skills-

upgrading (2) type of training or other occupational skills training (6) in either the Adult

Program or Dislocated Worker Program. It is also the dominant outcome for those who hold an

ITA in either program. Some training, particularly the skills-upgrading training, leads to either a

two-year associate degree or a four-year bachelor’s degree. Another avenue of training is to

obtain a license required by the state to practice that profession, such as a cosmetology license or

even a nursing license. Except for those whose training leads directly to a job (6) without any

certification or credentialing, everyone who completes a training program leaves the program

with at least measurable skills (7) and most often a certificate (1). Not all states have yet

complied with the reporting requirements of WIOA, by placing the applicable information on

27 Numbers in parentheses correspond to the coding used in the administrative records included in the WIOA

Performance Records Public Use File, which may appear at times in the tables included in this paper.

39

PIRL. Unfortunately, the state of Washington is one of the states that is not reporting program

outcomes, or qualifications, associated with training, including ITAs.

Table 5a Program of Study by Type of Training, WIOA Adult Program, Michigan PY2016

Type of

training

Program of study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

1 72 5 14 11 1 277 107 488

2 949 118 80 50 18 20 107 1,346

5 15 4 1 2 0 0 55 77

6 778 148 25 24 13 28 61 1,081

Total 1,829 275 120 90 33 328 330 3,023

Table 5b Program of Study by Type of Training for Individuals with ITAs, WIOA Adult

Program, Michigan PY2016

Type of

training

Program of study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

1 51 5 13 11 1 12 8 102

2 920 114 79 49 17 20 69 1,272

5 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 9

6 553 140 25 13 9 23 41 808

Total 1,534 262 118 74 28 58 118 2,206

Table 5c Program of Study by Type of Training, WIOA Dislocated Worker Program,

Michigan PY2016

Type of

training

Program of study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

1 47 7 12 3 2 161 132 364

2 407 65 40 25 15 11 50 615

6 246 68 13 1 4 7 8 347

Total 707 140 65 29 21 179 192 1, 339

40

Table 5d Program of Study by Type of Training for Individuals with ITAs, WIOA

Dislocated Worker Program, Michigan PY2016

Type of

training

Program of study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

1 36 6 12 3 2 11 16 86

2 404 64 36 23 15 11 50 605

6 246 68 7 1 3 7 7 339

Total 691 138 55 27 20 29 73 1,037

NOTE: Type of training is categorized as 1) On-the-job training (OJT), 2) Skill upgrading, 5) Customized training,

or 6) Other occupational skills training. Program of study includes training leading to 1) industry-recognized

certificate or certification, 2) license recognized by the state involved or the federal government, 3) associate degree,

4) bachelor’s degree, 5) community college certificate of completion, 6) employment, and 7) measurable skills gain.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

Under WIA, states were not required to report the program of study, which is now

required under WIOA. Therefore, the only previous data available regarding the information

included in Tables 5a–d for Michigan is on the type of training. Four figures are included that

provide a time series from 2004 through the most recent data available on the types of training.

For Michigan and Washington, four predominant types of training are available: 1) on-the-job

training, 2) skill upgrading, 3) customized training, and 4) other occupational skill upgrading.

Other types of training were also available during that time, but the numbers enrolled were so

small that they were not included in the figures. For Michigan, skill upgrading and other

occupational skill upgrading were the two most prevalent types of training throughout the 14-

year period, as is displayed in the figures. A large upsurge in the number of exiters receiving

training occurred during the recession years from 2007 through 2011, funded largely through the

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), but most of the funding went toward skill

upgrading, which is individualized instruction funded primarily through ITAs.

Training under Washington’s two WIOA adult programs concentrates on other

occupational skill upgrading. This category is typically reserved for training that is

individualized but not the traditional classroom training, as found under the skill upgrading

41

category. In or around 2004, Washington introduced a new type of training program, which

today is known as I-BEST, for Integrated Basic Education Skills and Training. Because of its

nature, it is likely that the state back in 2004 instructed local WIBs to include that type of

training in the “other” category, as they do today.28 Washington, like Michigan, increased the

number of exiters receiving training during the recession, but unlike Michigan, Washington

offered more training in the early 2000s than it did at the depth of the recession. Today, the

amount of training recorded for the two programs is about a quarter of what it was during the

early 2000s. One explanation is that Washington’s economy has been booming in recent years,

compared to Michigan and other parts of the country, and fewer individuals need assistance in

finding a job. Furthermore, since the state allocation of WIOA funding is based partly on the

local unemployment rate, there is less funding available for training and other services.

Figure 1 Training Types for Michigan’s Adult Program

NOTE: The graphs depict the number of exiters receiving various types of training, not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) and Participant

Individual Record Layout (PIRL) data sets.

28 Michigan recently adopted a type of training similar to I-BEST, but it has yet to be determined in which training

category that will be recorded. It is an individualized training program but not in the traditional classroom setting, as

is typically the case for training listed as “skill upgrading.” Currently, most of the training listed under the other

occupational-skill-upgrading category is incumbent worker training, which provides individualized training to

workers who are already employed.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

OJT skill upgrading customized training other occ skill upgrading

42

Figure 2 Training Types for Michigan’s Dislocated Worker Program

NOTE: The graphs depict the number of exiters receiving various types of training, not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL data sets.

Figure 3 Training Types for Washington’s Adult Program

NOTE: The graphs depict the number of exiters receiving various types of training, not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL data sets.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

OJT skill upgrading customized training other occ skill upgrading

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

OJT skill upgrading customized training other occ skill upgrading

43

Figure 4 Training Types for Washington’s Dislocated Worker Program

NOTE: The graphs depict the number of exiters receiving various types of training, not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL data sets.

3.11 Who Receives Training?

Local WIBs and states determine priorities by which various population groups received

training, including ITAs. Tables 6 and 7 display selected characteristics of exiters from the Adult

Program and the Dislocated Worker Program for the each of the two study states. By including

all exiters from the two programs for the two states and by dividing training into those who

received ITAs and those who received other types of training, one can compare the demographic

characteristics of ITA recipients with other groups of exiters.

The two study states and the two workforce programs within those states differ in the

percentage of various population groups receiving training. For instance, Table 6 shows that

slightly over half (54.4 percent) of exiters from Michigan’s Adult Program receive training

services, while 65.3 percent of those receiving training have ITAs. An even greater share (76.8

percent) of training recipients from Michigan’s Dislocated Worker Program have ITAs, whereas

the share of exiters in the Dislocated Worker Program receiving training is about the same as the

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

OJT skill upgrading customized training other occ skill upgrading

44

share of Adult Program exiters receiving training. The table also shows the share of various

population groups that receive services. One high-priority group for the Adult Program is low-

income workers. A large percentage of the exiters from Michigan’s Adult Program are low-

income individuals, but a smaller share of low-income exiters receive training than do not (59.4

percent who do, compared with 78.8 percent who do not receive training. But for those low-

income exiters receiving training, a large majority (75.0 percent) receive the service through

ITAs. Michigan’s Dislocated Worker Program is also heavily populated with low-income

individuals. More than 60 percent of the exiters are low-income, and 68 percent of the 66 percent

who receive training receive ITAs. It is interesting that the black population receives relatively

little training. Although blacks account for 45 percent of the exiters in Michigan’s Adult

Program, only 27.2 percent receive any type of training, and 36 percent of those receiving

training have ITAs. Michigan’s Dislocated Worker Program is more equitable: a quarter of the

program’s exiters are black, and the same percentage receive services. The percentage of black

exiters receiving ITAs is only slightly higher than the percentage receiving any type of training

(28.5 percent versus 25.6 percent).

Table 7 displays the characteristics of those receiving training in Washington. In contrast

to Michigan, only a small share of exiters from the Adult Program receive services (9.3 percent).

Nearly half the exiters from Washington’s Dislocated Worker Program receive training. For both

programs, ITAs are used by two-thirds of the exiters who receive training. A substantial

difference between the administration of the programs in the two states is the small share of

exiters who are black. Blacks account for only 10 percent of the exiters in the Adult Program and

around 6.5 percent in the Dislocated Worker Program. And the percentage of blacks who receive

training is only a few percentage points higher than those who do not receive training.

45

Furthermore, about the same percentage of black exiters receive ITAs as those who receive other

types of training. Compared with Michigan, a relatively small share of low-income individuals,

about 26 percent versus Michigan’s 68 percent, are in Washington’s Adult Program.

Tables 8 and 9 display the same characteristics of exiters who received training and who

established ITAs as the previous two tables, but for those who exited the program five years

earlier, under WIA and not WIOA. As one can see from the shares of the total, exiters who

received training used ITAs more extensively under WIA in 2011 than under WIOA in 2016.

Eighty-one percent of Michigan exiters who received training through both the Adult Program

and the Dislocated Worker Program received it under ITAs in 2011, compared with only 65

percent in 2016. For Washington State, the greater dependence on ITAs under WIA was apparent

only through the Dislocated Worker Program, in which 82 percent of training was received

through ITAs under WIA in 2011, as opposed to only 66 percent used ITAs under WIOA in

2016.

46

Table 6 Share of Selected Characteristics of Exiters Receiving Training from the Adult

Program and Dislocated Worker Program in Michigan, PY2016

Adult Dislocated Worker

Exiter Received training Received training

No Yes No Yes

ITA ITA

No Yes No Yes

Counts 2,455 2,931 1,018 1,913 1,181 1,254 291 963

Share of total 0.544 0.653 0.515 0.768

Characteristics

Female 0.518 0.523 0.380 0.581 0.445 0.452 0.319 0.492

Aged 16–25 0.277 0.251 0.289 0.221 0.070 0.118 0.113 0.119

Aged 26–35 0.250 0.340 0.236 0.329 0.199 0.256 0.223 0.266

Aged 36–45 0.217 0.214 0.205 0.227 0.273 0.266 0.275 0.263

Aged 46–55 0.181 0.146 0.184 0.163 0.305 0.252 0.275 0.245

Aged 56–65 0.070 0.053 0.082 0.058 0.146 0.107 0.113 0.105

Age at 65 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.002

Hispanic 0.040 0.057 0.049 0.060 0.047 0.049 0.021 0.058

Black 0.662 0.272 0.104 0.360 0.257 0.256 0.162 0.285

White 0.252 0.621 0.761 0.546 0.656 0.647 0.784 0.605

Less than high school 0.093 0.022 0.032 0.022 0.019 0.029 0.028 0.029

High school graduate 0.312 0.373 0.406 0.380 0.291 0.366 0.399 0.356

Some college 0.257 0.307 0.258 0.310 0.273 0.284 0.244 0.296

BA degree 0.086 0.105 0.166 0.072 0.160 0.112 0.117 0.110

Disabled 0.030 0.027 0.027 0.033 0.019 0.027 0.027 0.027

Veteran 0.017 0.021 0.027 0.024 0.058 0.039 0.058 0.033

Limited English 0.037 0.012 0.010 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.003 0.015

Single parent 0.225 0.234 0.083 0.315 0.125 0.183 0.124 0.200

Low income 0.788 0.594 0.385 0.750 0.592 0.658 0.584 0.680

TANF recipient 0.011 0.014 0.009 0.016 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.009

Homeless 0.053 0.011 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.010 0.010 0.009

Exoffender 0.126 0.067 0.039 0.076 0.080 0.054 0.034 0.060

Duration of services (qtrs.) 3.10 5.61 1.13 5.24 7.71 3.88 2.21 6.64

NOTE: The table includes all exiters of the Adult Program by whether they received training. Those receiving

training are further divided into exiters who received ITAs. Those who received training but did not receive an ITA

received other types of training services such as OJT, customized training, and others.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

47

Table 7 Share of Selected Characteristics of Exiters Receiving and Not Receiving Training from the

Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs in Washington, PY2016

Adult Dislocated Worker

Exiter Received training Received training

No Yes No Yes

ITA ITA

No Yes No Yes

Counts 6,939 713 230 483 1,370 1,157 389 768

% of total 0.093 0.677 0.458 0.664

Characteristics

Female 0.457 0.473 0.448 0.484 0.440 0.317 0.293 0.329

Aged 16–25 0.084 0.264 0.297 0.248 0.080 0.078 0.100 0.066

Aged 26–35 0.228 0.338 0.314 0.350 0.211 0.290 0.316 0.276

Aged 36–45 0.224 0.209 0.223 0.203 0.192 0.208 0.170 0.228

Aged 46–55 0.250 0.126 0.100 0.139 0.254 0.258 0.239 0.268

Aged 56–65 0.184 0.055 0.061 0.052 0.239 0.156 0.152 0.159

Age at 65 0.030 0.007 0.004 0.008 0.025 0.010 0.023 0.003

Hispanic 0.073 0.183 0.196 0.177 0.103 0.129 0.105 0.141

Black 0.097 0.103 0.075 0.117 0.058 0.078 0.091 0.071

White 0.648 0.594 0.622 0.581 0.690 0.665 0.652 0.672

Less than high school 0.114 0.123 0.139 0.116 0.096 0.091 0.123 0.074

High school graduate 0.221 0.296 0.257 0.315 0.227 0.271 0.239 0.287

Some college 0.201 0.236 0.244 0.232 0.215 0.198 0.190 0.202

BA degree 0.180 0.049 0.061 0.044 0.180 0.166 0.172 0.163

Disabled 0.074 0.092 0.101 0.088 0.076 0.062 0.075 0.056

Veteran 0.068 0.049 0.044 0.052 0.128 0.121 0.147 0.108

Limited English 0.081 0.074 0.057 0.083 0.053 0.049 0.049 0.049

Single parent 0.032 0.090 0.078 0.095 0.347 0.389 0.033 0.031

Low income 0.209 0.445 0.361 0.485 0.053 0.049 0.113 0.159

TANF recipient 0.036 0.032 0.039 0.029 0.013 0.006 0.005 0.007

Homeless 0.044 0.063 0.087 0.052 0.034 0.016 0.018 0.014

Exoffender 0.062 0.09 0.139 0.066 0.037 0.031 0.018 0.038

Duration of services (qtrs.) 6.24 2.74 2.29 2.95 1.63 3.33 2.81 3.59

NOTE: The table includes all exiters of the Adult Program by whether they received training. Those receiving

training are further divided into exiters who received ITAs. Those who received training but did not receive an ITA

received other types of training services such as OJT, customized training, and others.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

48

Table 8 Share of Selected Characteristics of Exiters Receiving and Not Receiving Training from the

Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs in Michigan, PY2011

Adult Dislocated Worker

Exiter Received training Received training

No Yes No Yes

ITA ITA

No Yes No Yes

Counts 2,571 4,525 843 3,682 1,954 4,629 703 3,926

% of total 0.638 0.814 0.703 0.848

Characteristics

Female 0.474 0.571 0.437 0.615 0.429 0.459 0.394 0.480

Aged 16–25 0.252 0.189 0.222 0.182 0.057 0.065 0.072 0.061

Aged 26–35 0.271 0.305 0.283 0.309 0.204 0.243 0.208 0.246

Aged 36–45 0.227 0.262 0.241 0.269 0.297 0.318 0.309 0.319

Aged 46–55 0.200 0.198 0.196 0.198 0.338 0.297 0.320 0.299

Aged 56–65 0.047 0.042 0.053 0.040 0.102 0.075 0.088 0.073

Age at 65 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002

Hispanic 0.066 0.054 0.059 0.054 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.056

Black 0.248 0.152 0.165 0.161 0.161 0.118 0.120 0.116

White 0.646 0.755 0.741 0.746 0.754 0.796 0.802 0.796

Less than high school 0.160 0.031 0.098 0.030 0.050 0.017 0.036 0.016

High school graduate 0.345 0.354 0.340 0.356 0.430 0.397 0.423 0.388

Some college 0.212 0.315 0.251 0.325 0.208 0.276 0.220 0.287

BA degree 0.067 0.101 0.087 0.098 0.100 0.108 0.107 0.109

Disabled 0.054 0.039 0.041 0.044 0.024 0.020 0.022 0.019

Veteran 0.042 0.049 0.053 0.047 0.080 0.067 0.074 0.066

Limited English 0.026 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.005

Single parent 0.216 0.187 0.179 0.195 0.138 0.105 0.112 0.109

Low income 0.764 0.627 0.621 0.663 0.701 0.623 0.708 0.604

TANF recipient 0.071 0.024 0.040 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Homeless 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Exoffender 0.186 0.053 0.116 0.053 0.333 0.000 0.333 0.000

Duration of services (qtrs.) 4.28 7.73 3.73 9.00 6.16 8.64 5.44 9.53

NOTE: The table includes all exiters of the Adult Program by whether they received training. Those receiving

training are further divided into exiters who received ITAs. Those who received training but did not receive an ITA

received other types of training services such as OJT, customized training, and others.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2011 WIASRD.

49

Table 9 Share of Selected Characteristics of Exiters Receiving and Not Receiving Training from the

Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs in Washington, PY2011

Adult Dislocated Worker

Exiter Received training Received training

No Yes No Yes

ITA ITA

No Yes No Yes

Counts 1,058 1,527 514 1,013 840 2,628 470 2,158

% of total 0.591 0.663 0.758 0.821

Characteristics

Female 0.517 0.597 0.547 0.622 0.451 0.411 0.426 0.411

Aged 16–25 0.175 0.237 0.302 0.204 0.033 0.055 0.050 0.054

Aged 26–35 0.260 0.318 0.270 0.342 0.127 0.214 0.153 0.222

Aged 36–45 0.216 0.231 0.195 0.249 0.255 0.276 0.263 0.280

Aged 46–55 0.234 0.155 0.169 0.148 0.376 0.323 0.351 0.324

Aged 56–65 0.109 0.056 0.058 0.054 0.200 0.129 0.176 0.116

Age at 65 0.007 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.007 0.003

Hispanic 0.120 0.112 0.140 0.097 0.054 0.069 0.053 0.071

Black 0.105 0.128 0.108 0.139 0.055 0.040 0.044 0.044

White 0.665 0.677 0.697 0.666 0.768 0.817 0.799 0.812

Less than high school 0.111 0.086 0.134 0.062 0.064 0.041 0.064 0.034

High school graduate 0.319 0.309 0.325 0.301 0.306 0.322 0.314 0.324

Some college 0.183 0.236 0.191 0.260 0.194 0.232 0.201 0.239

BA degree 0.110 0.079 0.058 0.089 0.175 0.140 0.144 0.144

Disabled 0.078 0.039 0.046 0.036 0.059 0.031 0.039 0.029

Veteran 0.096 0.072 0.086 0.065 0.112 0.122 0.125 0.117

Limited English 0.089 0.083 0.072 0.088 0.033 0.021 0.017 0.022

Single parent 0.274 0.316 0.327 0.311 0.142 0.118 0.152 0.113

Low income 0.862 0.857 0.825 0.874 0.034 0.025 0.125 0.015

TANF recipient 0.112 0.078 0.099 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Homeless 0.061 0.031 0.043 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Exoffender 0.134 0.130 0.156 0.117 0.037 0.024 0.020 0.021

Duration of services (qtrs.) 2.73 5.63 4.26 6.32 3.63 6.78 4.76 7.10

NOTE: The table includes all exiters of the Adult Program by whether they received training. Those receiving

training are further divided into exiters who received ITAs. Those who received training but did not receive an ITA

received other types of training services such as OJT, customized training, and others.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2011 WIASRD.

Figures 5 and 6 show the ratio of ITAs to training for both Adult and Dislocated Worker

Programs for each of the two study-site states from the early years of WIA through the most

50

recent data available for WIOA. The break in the time series reflects the WIA years (from 2004

to 2015 in these figures) followed by the WIOA era. As displayed in Figure 5, the ratio in

Michigan remains relatively constant throughout the 14-year period for both programs, whereas

in Figure 6, the ratio in Washington fluctuates in the earlier and later years of WIA and then

increases during WIOA. From 2007 through 2013, the ratios of ITAs to training remain

relatively steady for the two programs in Washington. Figures A1 through A8 in the Appendix

display the number of exiters who received training and established ITAs throughout this period.

In Michigan, the number who received training and established ITAs increased noticeably during

the recession of 2007–2009, then returned to prerecession levels or even lower. In contrast, the

number of exiters receiving training under both programs in Washington was high at the

beginning of the series and then steadily declined until the outset of the recession, when the

number receiving training increased for a few years before returning to prerecession levels. For

both states, the capacity to train additional participants during the recession was aided by an

injection of federal funds through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), which

was enacted in February of 2009; funds were available through 2014. During the time of ARRA,

Washington depended more on using ITAs to provide training than it had before and after the

ARRA funds were made available. Michigan, on the other hand, used ITAs to roughly the same

extent throughout the 14 years depicted in the figures.

51

Figure 5 Ratio of the Number of ITAs to the Number Receiving Training in Michigan

NOTE: Data are displayed in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL data for WIA and WIOA, respectively.

Figure 6 Ratio of the Number of ITAs to the Number Receiving Training in Washington

NOTE: Data are displayed in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL data for WIA and WIOA, respectively.

3.12 How Are ITAs Linked to the Overall Training System? Are There

Possibilities to Combine the ITA with Other Financing for Training?

For customers of the two adult WIOA programs, it is clear from the legislation, ETA

guidance letters, and conversations with counselors and administrators that ITAs are the

“primary method to be used for procuring training services under WIOA” (USDOL 2017).

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# IT

As/

# Tr

ain

ing

Adult ITA/Training WIASRD Diswrk ITA/Training WIASRD

Adult ITA/Training PERL Diswrk ITA/Training PERL

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# IT

As/

# Tr

ain

ing

Adult ITA/Training WIASRD

Diswrk ITA/Training WIASRD

Adult ITA/Training PERL

Diswrk ITA/Training PERL

52

However, the guidance also lays out various circumstances in which training contracts and other

types of training, such as on-the-job training and incumbent worker training, can be used instead.

ITAs are linked to the overall training system through the eligibility process and funding

mechanisms. Local WIB counselors determine first the need of an individual to receive training

in order to increase their likelihood of qualifying for local jobs or to improve their career path.

For an individual, most such training would be categorized as skill upgrading or other

occupational training. There are other types of training that involve more group training, for

which ITAs are not applicable. These types of training include on-the-job training and

customized training, which typically take place in the workplace and are targeted to meet the

needs of businesses.

One of the requirements of using WIOA funds for ITAs is to determine first whether the

individual is eligible to receive financial assistance for training from other federal programs or

whether the individual needs more assistance than other federal programs offer. Ideally, an

individual in need of training would be able to access more than one source of federal funding.

Although the use of training financial assistance, such as Pell Grants, by those also receiving

ITAs is not that prevalent, integrating various sources of training funding is part of the strategy

of ITAs and federal workforce training in general. Conversations with administrators in

Michigan reveal that the use of other financial assistance is negligible, and their assertion is

supported by analysis of the PIRL data for WIOA. For example, of the 4,185 exiters who

received training in PY2016 from the two WIOA programs in Michigan, only 232 combined it

with a Pell grant. That amounts to a little over 5 percent of all those who received training. For

Washington, the percentage was also slightly more than 5 percent, with 100 of the 1,834 who

received training from the two programs combining it with a Pell grant.

53

4. EVALUATION OF ITAs

The terms of reference for this study call for a section that provides evidence on the

actual use of ITAs, including information on the budget, participation, and type of training.

These topics have already been covered in the report, with a focus on how ITAs are actually used

under the two WIOA programs, and specifically in two states. Information that has not been

provided previously in the study is simply not available, such as expenditures on ITAs by state,

or even a national summary of expenditures on ITAs. Therefore, budgets are not disaggregated,

nor is there any information on cost sharing.

This section provides a brief description of the following items related to accountability:

• Accountability through annual reporting

• Postparticipation labor-market outcome measures

• A summary of the budget for training for the two states for PY2016

• The number of participants receiving ITAs over time (in an appendix)

• A brief description of a random-assignment evaluation of ITAs conducted in the early

2000s

The other questions presented in this section have already been addressed in previous sections of

the study. They include the following:

• Profile of participants in training and ITAs

• Average amount and range of spending on training by WIB

• Average length of training

• Type of training undertaken

• Distribution of participants (exiters) by acquired qualification level

• Criteria for registering qualified training providers

• Establishment of a list of training courses among which individuals can choose

• Communication of information on the quality of training to the public to allow the

individual to make an informed choice

54

4.1 Accountability through Annual Reporting

Pursuant to TEGL 20-17, all states must submit by October 1 of each year an annual

performance report to their ETA regional office that summarizes all grantee activities and lists

the core deliverables and activities shown below, in the order indicated:

1. Workforce information database (WID)

2. Industry and occupational employment projections

3. Annual economic analysis and other reports

4. Customer consultations

5. Activities undertaken to meet customer needs

6. New tools and resources

7. License requirement updates

8. Efforts to create and support partnerships and collaborations

9. Brief overview of the required training.

ETA regards state economic and labor market analyses as essential in planning WIOA and other

workforce programs. Therefore, ETA requires statewide economic analysis reports and

encourages annual publication. However, ETA recognizes that conditions may not change

sufficiently each year to necessitate an annual report, and so it gives states the discretion to

determine their frequency. For the years in which a comprehensive economic report is not issued,

grantees must publish other economic reports of value to state policymakers (including the

governor and state legislature), as well as state and local WDBs.

States have broad discretion over the reports’ contents, but they are required to include

analyses of trends and challenges at both the state and substate levels. Examples of topics may

include gross domestic product; employment growth or decline (actual and projected);

55

unemployment and other labor-market hardship indicators (such as low earnings); identification

of growing or in-demand occupations and industries; other analyses of important industries and

occupations; and skill shortages, mismatches, or deficiencies, within the limitations of the

available data. The analyses should address the jobless population as a whole, as well as the

experiences, needs, and challenges of the targeted populations identified in state planning

requirements.

The general workforce theme reported by both study states in their annual reports

concerns the difficulties expressed by employers in finding qualified workers to fill job

vacancies. To help remedy this talent deficiency, the two states are using their WIOA funds to

help with training workers for jobs in high-demand occupations. However, because the

unemployment rates in both states have declined, less WIOA funding is available, since each

state’s allotment is based on a formula that includes the unemployment rate.

4.2 Labor-Market Outcomes of Program Exiters

The performance of states and local WIBs are also captured in gross labor-market

outcomes. WIOA requires states and local WIBs to calculate three performance measures: 1)

employment in unsubsidized work in the second quarter after exit; 2) employment in

unsubsidized work in the fourth quarter after exit; and 3) median quarterly earnings recorded in

the second quarter after exit. These measures are collected for each individual participant that

exits a WIOA program. The measures are objective in the sense that they are collected through

the Unemployment Insurance system wage records, which are compiled to administer the UI

system.29 Therefore, there is no possibility of states or local WIBs manipulating the data, as

29 These measures are based on the same administrative data that are used to calculate the outcomes of those who

complete training programs, as reported in the Eligible Training Provider List.

56

could be the case with survey responses or other means. These three measures are referred to as

common measures, since each of the WIOA programs are subject to the same set of performance

measures. The labor market outcomes, as captured by these three measures, are recorded for each

individual receiving training services. Each state and local WIB is held accountable to

predetermined targets for each of the three common measures for each WIOA program, and for

other Core programs. The targets for the states are set by the USDOL/ETA, and the targets for

the local WIBs are set by the states in which they reside. The targets are determined through a

negotiating process between the ETA and the states for the state targets and between the states

and the local WIBs for the local WIB targets.

Tables 10 and 11 display the entered employment rate for exiters of the Adult and

Dislocated Worker Programs for the two study states. The numbers are displayed so that various

comparisons are possible. Nonetheless, it should be made clear that one cannot infer the net

impact of services (in this case, training services or ITAs) by comparing employment rates from

this table. Net impact requires that the treatment and comparison groups are comparable, and

even though exiters were sorted by whether they were employed prior to entering the program,

that is only one of many factors that must be controlled for when constructing a comparison

group. With this caveat, it is clear that those who held a job prior to entering either of the two

programs had a higher rate of finding employment after exit (third line in the tables). Those

receiving training had a higher employment rate than those not receiving the service, except for

those exiting the Dislocated Worker Program in Michigan who were previously employed. A

full-scale random-assignment experiment was conducted to test the efficacy of ITAs, the results

of which are reported in section 4.4.

57

Table 10 Employment Outcomes of Training and ITA Recipients of Michigan’s WIOA

Programs, PY2016

Adult Program Dislocated Worker Program Not employed previously Employed previously Not employed previously Employed previously

0.767 0.888 0.782 0.941

Training Training Training Training

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

0.724 0.836 0.834 0.941 0.648 0.853 0.949 0.931

ITA ITA ITA ITA

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

0.783 0.846 0.972 0.927 0.889 0.895 0.929 0.931

NOTE: The numbers are the employment rate in the second quarter after exiting the respective program.

SOURCE: Author’s calculations of WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

Table 11 Employment Outcomes of Training and ITA recipients of Washington’s WIOA

programs, PY2016

Adult Program Dislocated Worker Program Not employed previously Employed previously Not employed previously Employed previously

0.686 0.761 0.758 0.800

Training Training Training Training

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

0.661 0.759 0.743 0.819 0.706 0.816 0.796 0.805

ITA ITA ITA ITA

No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

0.705 0.784 0.813 0.825 0.725 0.873 0.763 0.824

NOTE: The numbers are the employment rate in the second quarter after exiting the respective program.

SOURCE: Author’s calculations of WIOA Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL).

The findings of higher employment rates associated with training services are not

consistent with the most recent rigorous evaluation of the federal workforce programs. Only after

WIA was replaced by WIOA did the USDOL release the results of an extensive evaluation of

training using a random-assignment methodology. The evaluation began in 2011, three years

before WIOA was enacted, and the results, released in 2017 and based on employment data of

participants 30 months after enrolling in the program, show that training yielded little-to-no

58

positive effect on employment outcomes.30 The study, conducted by Mathematica and its

partners, speculated that the low percentage of participants offered training through the Adult

and Dislocated Worker Programs and the fact that many may have sought training elsewhere

may have contributed to the statistically insignificant results. Less rigorous evaluations, using

propensity-score matching, have found larger, positive effects of training (Hollenbeck et al.

2005; Mueser et al. 2010;). But this methodology is not as highly regarded as random-control

trial experiments, and the results should be viewed with some caution.31

4.3 Expenditures and Participants

Table 10 summarizes expenditures, participation, and labor market outcomes for the two

study-site states. As emphasized previously, the amount spent on training and the number

receiving training services and ITAs varies by state. Michigan spends 35 percent of its federal

allotment for the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs on training, but it provides training to

54 percent of the exiters from the two programs. Washington, on the other hand, spends 80

percent of its federal allotment for Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs on training, but it

provides training to only 18 percent of the exiters from the two programs. Obviously,

Washington spends much more on training per exiter than does Michigan, even though it

provides training to only a fraction of the number of exiters that receive training in Michigan.

30 Mathematica website description of the WIA “gold standard” evaluation, https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-

publications-and-findings/projects/wia-gold-standard-evaluation, visited February 25, 2019. 31 The most recent random-assignment evaluation of workforce services sponsored by the USDOL was begun in

2008. It is referred to as the “gold standard” evaluation of WIA, and the evaluation was conducted by Mathematica

Policy Research. Interim reports have been released showing positive results, including the increase in earnings and

employment from training. However, the final, longer-term impacts have not yet been released, even though they

were scheduled to be released earlier this year. Four federal agencies, including the USDOL, in 2014 released a

synthesis of previous findings on training, “What Works in Job Training, A Synthesis of the Evidence,” which is

also in understanding the effects of job training but not ITAs. An independent evaluation of ITAs was conducted in

the early 2000s but not released until 2011. It is considered the gold standard of what we know about the effects of

ITAs in offering choice to customers.

59

The largest difference between the two states is the percentage of Adult exiters receiving

training. Michigan provides training to 54 percent of its Adult exiters, whereas Washington

provides training to only 9 percent. Yet, the training cost per Adult exiter in Washington is more

than twice that of Michigan. The training cost per exiter from the Dislocated Worker Program in

Washington is an even higher multiple of Michigan’s expenditure.

Table 12 Expenditures, Participation, and Labor Market Outcomes of All Participants and

Participants Receiving Training in Michigan and Washington

Michigan Washington

Adult Dislocated

Worker Adult

Dislocated

Worker

All individuals

PY2016 expenditure ($ millions) 29.8 18.9 9.4 12.7

No. participants 12,271 4,514 9,098 3,928

No. exiters 5,386 2,435 7,652 2,527

Entered employment rate 2nd qrtr (%) 85.5 91.3 71.3 78.9

Median earnings 2nd qrtr ($) 7,777 9,435 7,944 11,136

Cost per exiter ($) 5,533 7,761 1,228 5,025

Those receiving training

PY2016 training exp. ($ millions) 12.3 4.9 7.1 10.6

No. participants receiving training 6,255 2,644 1,406 2,052

No. exiters receiving training 2,931 1,254 713 1,157

Entered employment rate 2nd qrtr (%) 91.2 90.9 79.3 82.7

Median earnings 2nd qrtr ($) 9,075 8,590 8,244 11,936

Cost per exiter ($) 4,197 3,907 9,957 9,162

Those establishing an ITA

No. exiters 1,913 963 483 768

Entered employment rate 2nd qrtr (%) 89.6 90.5 80.1 84.1

Median earnings 2nd qrtr ($) 7,393 8,421 8,919 12,411

NOTE: The employment-rate numbers differ from those found in Tables 10 and 11 because of different samples of

exiters.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File and ETA state performance

reports (ETA-9169).

4.4 Rigorous Evaluation of the ITA Program

Only one rigorous evaluation of the ITA program has been conducted, and it was

conducted more than a decade ago. There is nothing more recent, and like so many rigorous

evaluations of workforce programs, policymakers rely on the results of programs for many years

60

afterward. The premise of ITAs is that customer choice will provide a better match between the

needs of customers and the services provided and will provide more competition among training

providers to offer the best training. The evaluation described briefly does not evaluate training

per se. Rather, it evaluates the effectiveness of customers choosing their own program of

training.

The evaluation asks the basic question: Does choice make a difference? To answer this

question, the U.S. Department of Labor funded a random-assignment evaluation to compare the

effectiveness of three different levels of customer choice, which varied along three dimensions

related to the management of customer choice: 1) spending limits, 2) whether counseling is

mandatory or voluntary, and 3) the extent to which local counselors can restrict customer

choices. The three approaches are summarized in Table 13. Since the study design did not

include a comparison group that received no training, the ITA evaluation examined only the

relative effectiveness of the different methods of training, not the effectiveness of training alone.

The first approach was the most directed. Termed structured customer choice, it required

customers to receive intensive counseling, in which counselors were expected to steer customers

to training programs with a high return. Counselors could reject customers’ choices that did not

fit this criterion. Counselors decided on the amount of the ITA, which could be higher than under

the other approaches, up to a maximum of $8,000 at most sites.

The second approach was similar to the approach that most workforce investment

agencies adopted in the transition to WIA. Under this approach, referred to as guided customer

choice, counseling was mandatory, but it was less intensive than under the first approach.

Counselors could not reject customers’ choices of training programs if they were on the state’s

list of eligible providers. Customers received a fixed ITA award of $3,000–$5,000.

61

The third approach offered the most customer choice and the least structure. The

maximum customer choice approach did not require customers to participate in counseling after

being determined eligible for WIA-funded training, but customers could receive counseling if

they requested it. Customers received a fixed ITA award, equal to the award of the second

approach. As with the second approach, counselors could not reject customers’ choices if they

were on the state’s list of approved providers.

Table 13 The Three Approaches Tested in the ITA Experiment

Approach 1: Structured customer

choice

2: Guided customer

choice

3: Maximum

customer choice

Award amount Customized Fixed Fixed

Counseling Mandatory, most

intensive

Mandatory, moderate

intensity Voluntary

Could counselors reject

customers’ program choices? Yes No No

SOURCE: McConnell et al. (2006).

The ITA experiment, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, used an experimental

design to explore how these three approaches affected customer outcomes (McConnell et al.

2006). All three approaches were implemented side by side at eight study sites across the

country. Each study site was a local workforce investment area that had fully implemented the

WIA programs. Nearly 8,000 customers determined eligible for training at the participating sites

were randomly assigned to one of the three approaches. Counselors worked with customers

assigned to all three approaches. No one was denied services; only the relative intensity of the

approaches varied across the three groups, as previously described. The evaluation took place

between December 2001 and February 2004.

62

The relative effectiveness of the three approaches was assessed by conducting pairwise

comparisons of employment outcomes between the different combinations of approaches.

Outcomes were obtained from the following sources: the local workforce investment areas’

management information, a 15-month follow-up survey, and administrative data. The

management information system recorded participation in counseling, ITA receipt, and training

expenditures. The survey contained questions about the receipt of counseling, satisfaction with

counseling, participation in counseling, employment and earnings, and receipt of UI and public

assistance. The administrative data was from UI wage records and included earnings at least five

quarters before and after random assignment.

The benefit-cost analysis examined the benefits and costs of each approach to determine

which approach was most cost-effective. The key benefits are associated with changes in

earnings, fringe benefits, taxes, UI receipt and public-assistance receipt. The four costs are the

ITA awards, costs of training not funded by ITAs, the cost of counselors’ time, and WIA

administrative costs.

The results suggest that no one approach is preferable to another. There were no

statistically significant differences in net benefits to society between the different approaches,

even though the net benefits are highest for approach 2 and lowest for approach 3. There were

also no statistically significant differences between the three approaches on most employment

outcomes, including employment rates, weeks worked, earnings, or occupation. This suggests

that greater freedom by customers to choose the type of training and the training provider did not

improve the benefits to them of receiving the training. Since all three approaches were available

at each of the eight study sites, it was not possible to determine whether greater choice among

63

customers resulted in greater competition among providers and greater response to customer

needs.

The study did find that the three approaches may affect the use of counseling,

participation in ITAs, and the type of training and when customers receive it. Very few

participants requested counseling after orientation if they were not required to receive it.

Mandatory counseling under approaches 1 and 2 discouraged the use of ITA-funded training. For

those who requested training, counseling delayed the start of training by about two weeks. Yet

counseling broadened the set of training options customers considered: participants in the third

group, which had the least structure and counseling, considered fewer training programs. The

results should not be interpreted to suggest that counseling is not important: all participants who

were assigned to training, and thus to one of the three approaches, had already received at least

five hours of counseling before they were assigned to one of the three treatment groups.32 In

addition, one could draw the conclusion from these results that the government could save

money by dropping the extra counseling, which presumably costs additional resources. However,

the study found that Approach One costs the government $1,017 more per eligible customer than

Approach Two, and that Approach Three costs the government $800 more.

4.5 Strengths and Weaknesses

The ITA is not a type of training; rather, it is a way of selecting a training program and

paying for it. From a modeling perspective, the approach adopted by the ETA offers choice and

flexibility to customers. A strength of ITAs could be the partnership between program

participants and the program counselors in choosing a training program. According to economy

theory, the informed choice approach should be superior to a system that mandates the type of

32 Wandner (2010) makes this point in his book Solving the Reemployment Puzzle.

64

training participants should take. When WIA was enacted, market-driven delivery of government

services was favored by a more conservative Congress. Since most states and local WIBs

voluntarily chose the informed-choice model before ETA mandated the approach, an optimistic

position would say that following the informed-choice model would do no harm. A less

optimistic perspective would say that the informed-choice model is no better than any other. The

only rigorous evaluation of the “choice” models offered by ITAs is inconclusive; the study found

no statistically significant differences between employment outcomes or social benefits among

the three models. Thus, there is no clear benefit to invest in one model over another.

A weakness of the the informed-choice model of ITAs is that the approach may carry

additional costs, particularly over the mandated training model in which the counselor makes the

final decision about which training program to pursue. Informed choice requires that customers

have sufficient knowledge of the training programs they are to choose from. The Eligible

Training Provider list requires considerable information about the program, both from the

provider and from agencies of the state within which they reside. Information supplied by state

agencies primarily involves UI wage records, which are used to record an exiter’s employment

and earnings. The calculation of employment rates and earnings levels requires staff time to

compile the information and compute the information for students completing the program. If

such information is not necessary to compile for the other types of choice model, such as

maximum choice, then adhering to the informed-choice model would impose additional costs on

government agencies and providers. Therefore, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, informed

choice would be less cost effective than the other two models, since the informed-choice model

imposes the extra cost to society, as there is no clear benefit to offset the greater cost. However,

one could also argue that regardless of who makes the decision about training, information about

65

eligible programs is still necessary to make a wise decision. The difference in cost depends upon

the extent and frequency of the information gathered.

A related weakness of the ITAs is the lack of complete information from training

providers to help with the decision. The Eligible Training Provider list requires information

about the program, the provider, and past graduates. Under WIA, a majority of states were

granted waivers from submitting this information. WIOA is moving forward with assuring that

all the information is made available, but not all providers have provided the necessary

information.

Another weakness of ITAs, as administered through WIOA programs, is that WIOA

primarily targets more traditional work arrangements than nonstandard ones, both in who is

eligible and in what is counted as unsubsidized employment. WIA was even less flexible in its

definition of employment. WIOA emphasizes putting people into regular jobs, although it

recognizes that nonstandard jobs can be used to transition into regular unsubsidized jobs.

However, in most cases, nonstandard work arrangements, except for some forms of self-

employment, are not accepted as the ultimate goal of the WIOA programs. For instance, the

stated purpose of the Adult Program is to assist economically disadvantaged adults in finding

employment. The purpose of the Dislocated Worker Program is to assist workers who lost their

jobs within a traditional work arrangement offered by a regular employer in finding an

unsubsidized job in another traditional work arrangement. Experts recognize that the type of

work valued by the workforce programs needs to be more consistent with the emerging trends in

the labor market, but change is slow to happen.

A significant weakness of ITAs and training in general is that available funds are not

sufficient to help everyone who needs additional training to find employment or to launch a

66

career that will place them on firmer financial footing. Some states augment federal WIOA funds

with their own state funding. The state of Washington funded workforce programs through state

revenue sources that equaled 91 percent of the amount the state received from federal funds.

States and local WIBs are also encouraged to combine federal funding from WIOA with training

funds from other funding sources. However, the use of other funding, such as Pell Grants, to

supplement WIOA training dollars is minimal.

5. CONCLUSION

Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) are the primary method by which WIOA funds

short-term training to upgrade the skills of program participants so they can better qualify for

jobs in occupations that are in demand. For workers from nonstandard work arrangements, the

study finds that the criteria used to determine eligibility for enrollment in the two WIOA

programs studied and for referral to training services offered by those programs are likely to

cover some, but not all, forms of nonstandard work arrangements. More specifically, workers

who are self-employed, who are considered low-income individuals, who receive income support

from federal programs, and who face multiple employment barriers are given higher priority in

receiving services, particularly in the Adult Program, and these individuals are more likely to

come from nonstandard work arrangements. Nevertheless, both the Adult and Dislocate Worker

Programs are intended primarily to help low-to-middle-class workers from more traditional work

arrangements. The fact that workers from nonstandard work arrangements may be assisted by

these programs is primarily the result of priority being given to lower-income individuals.

The typical structure of ITAs allows for participants to maximize customer choice when

accessing publicly provided training while holding the customer and the providers accountable

for employment outcomes. Local WIBs have the discretion to select a structure of ITA that

67

ranges from free choice, on the one hand, and informed or guided approach, on the other. The

approach most preferred by local workforce investment areas is the informed or guided

customer-choice model, in which customers are required to consult with counselors, but

counselors have little control over which training program customers choose and who provides

it. Customers receive a fixed ITA award based on the training program they choose. In many

states, participants must demonstrate that they have both financial and cognitive competencies

before qualifying for an ITA. Essential in supporting informed decisions is for participants to

have access to reliable and comprehensive information about eligible training providers.

According to WIOA legislation, these providers must describe their programs in detail, specify

the performance outcomes of the programs, and link the programs to in-demand occupations by

providing customers with information about job characteristics and projections of the demand for

various occupations.

The random-assignment evaluation of ITAs, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor

and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, found little difference in the three options

ranging from free choice to restricted choice. While employment outcomes and cost

effectiveness differed among combinations of approaches, the differences were not statistically

significant. The approach chosen was shown, however, to affect the use of ITAs. Those

customers for whom counseling was mandatory used ITAs less frequently, while those who

chose to use counseling explored more training options.

It is apparent from studying state and local plans for the implementation of WIOA

programs and the policy guidelines for the use of ITAs in delivering training services that nearly

all locations emphasize the importance of maximizing choice in the selection of training courses

and programs. The wide variation in the type of training and the use of ITAs across states and

68

across WIBs in the two states studied in greater depth suggests that the choices given to

workforce participants, as well as the discretion that WIOA offers states and local WIBs in

setting strategic initiatives, allow all participants to customize programs in ways they deem best

to prepare their customers for the challenges of the workplace.

The study highlights the neglect by the two adult programs in WIOA in covering

participants who come from nonstandard work arrangements. Individuals who work part-time,

are contract workers, or attain work assignments from a web-based platform are not specifically

covered under the WIOA programs. Consequently, they do not have the same access as

individuals from more standard work arrangements have to training and other WIOA services.

Therefore, more attention needs to be given to nonstandard workers when tweaking current

public workforce programs and designing future programs as the number of nonstandard workers

continues to increase.

69

References

Council of State Governments. 2017. “Federal Funding for State Employment and Training

Programs Covered by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.” Capitol

Research, April: 1–9.

Decker, Paul T, and Irma L. Perez-Johnson. 2004. “Individual Training Accounts, Eligible

Training Provider Lists, and Consumer Report Systems.” In Job Training Policy in the

United States, Christopher J. O’Leary, Robert A. Straits, and Stephen A. Wandner, eds.

Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, pp. 177–209.

Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher King, and Wei-Jang Huang. 2005. “Net

Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the Workforce Investment Act.” ETA

Occasional Paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration.

Kosanovich, Karen. 2018. “A Look at Contingent Workers.” Spotlight on Statistics. Washington,

DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

McConnell, Sheena, Elizabeth Stuart, Kenneth Fortson, Paul T. Decker, Irma L. Perez-Johnson,

Barbara Harris, and Jeffrey Salzman. 2006. Managing Customers’ Training Choices:

Findings from the Individual Training Account Experiment. Final Report. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research.

Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget. 2018. Hot 50: Michigan’s

High-Demand, High-Wage Careers. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Technology,

Management, and Budget, Bureau of Labor Market Information and Strategic Initiatives.

Mueser, Peter R., Carolyn J. Heinrich, Kenneth R. Troske, Kyung-Seong Jeon, and Daver C.

Kahvecioglu, 2010. “New Estimates of Public Employment and Training Program Net

Impacts: A Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce Investment Act Program.”

Working Papers No. 1003. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Department of

Economics.

State of Michigan. 2018. “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Eligibility and

Documentation.” In Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Manual: For

WIOA Title I Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs. Lansing, MI: State of

Michigan, Talent Investment Agency, Targeted Services Division, pp. 1–49.

State of Washington. 2017a. Eligibility Policy Handbook. Revision 3. Seattle, WA: Employment

System Administration and Policy, Employment Security Department, p. 13.

———. 2017b. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title 1-B: Governor’s Procedure for

Determining Training Program Eligibility. Seattle, WA: Workforce Training and

Education Coordinating Board.

70

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). 2015. Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 37-

14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration.

———. 2016. Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 17-15. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

———. 2017. Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 19-16. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

Wandner, Stephen A. 2010. Solving the Reemployment Puzzle: From Research to Policy.

Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

71

Appendix of Tables and Figures

Table A1 Categories of Contingent Workers and Workers in Alternative Work

Arrangements

OECD

category

BLS category BLS description % of U.S.

workers

% of MI

workers

% of WA

workers

Casual

workers

Contingent workers:

Estimation

methodology 1

Wage and salary workers who

expect their jobs will last for an

additional year or less and who had

worked at their jobs for 1 year or

less

1.3 0.7 1.8

Contingent workers:

Estimation

methodology 2

Workers, including the self-

employed and independent

contractors, who expect their

employment to last for an additional

year or less and who had worked at

their jobs (or were self-employed)

for 1 year or less

1.6 1.0 5.2

Contingent workers:

Estimation

methodology 3

Workers who do not expect their

jobs to last, regardless of the length

of time in their current job 3.8 3.4 5.2

Independent

contractors

Workers who are identified as

independent contractors,

independent consultants, or freelance

workers, regardless of whether they

are self-employed or wage and

salary workers

6.9 5.6 7.4

Casual

workers On-call workers

Workers who are called to work only

as needed, although they can be

scheduled to work for several days

or weeks in a row

1.7 1.8 2.5

Temporary

and agency

workers

Temporary help agency

workers

Workers who are paid by a

temporary help agency, whether or

not their job is temporary 0.9 1.5 0.3

Workers provided by

contract firms

Workers who are employed by a

company that provides them or their

services to others under contract are

usually assigned to only one

customer, and they usually work at

the customer’s worksite.

0.6 1.4 1.9

Self-

employed Self-employed 10.1 8.7 10.5

Unincorporated

Workers have not established a legal

business entity and work

independently. 6.4 5.5 6.1

Incorporated

Workers have established an

incorporated business; self-

employed are typically included as

wage and salary workers since these

individuals work for their

incorporated businesses.

3.7 3.2 4.5

SOURCE: Author’s categorization of the Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS Dislocated Worker Supplement

(2015–2016) and the OECD terms of reference.

72

Table A2 Comparison of Eligibility Requirements for the Dislocated Worker Program

between Michigan and Washington

Michigan Washington

General

dislocation

A worker who has been terminated or laid off or

who has received a notice of termination or

layoff from employment

An individual who was terminated, laid off,

or received a notice of termination or layoff

AND AND

Is unlikely to return to a previous industry or

occupation

Is determined to be unlikely to return to

previous industry or occupation (defined by

WIB)

AND AND

Has been employed for a duration sufficient to

demonstrate, to the appropriate entity at a one-

stop center, attachment to the workforce, but is

not eligible for unemployment compensation

because of sufficient earnings or having

performed services for an employer that were not

covered under state UI law

Is eligible for or

has exhausted

entitlement to

UI

OR An individual

employed at a

facility at which the

employer has made

a general

announcement that

the facility will

close within 180

days AND has been terminated or laid off or has

received a notice of termination or layoff from

employment as a result of any permanent closure

of or any substantial layoff at a plant, facility, or

enterprise

OR is employed at a facility at which the

employer has made a general announcement that

such facility will close within 180 days

OR is employed at a facility at which the

employer has made a general announcement that

such facility will close with no given date

Self-

employed

dislocation

Was self-employed (included employment as a

farmer, rancher, or fisherman) but is unemployed

as a result of general economic conditions in the

community in which the individual resides or

because of natural disasters

Was self-employed (including employment

as a farmer, rancher or fisherman), but is

unemployed as a result of general economic

conditions in the community in which the

individual resides or because of natural

disasters

Displaced

homemaker

Is a displaced homeworker An individual who was dependent on the

income of another family member and is no

longer supported by the income of that

family member

OR OR

Is the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces

on active duty and has experienced a loss of

employment as a direct result of relocation to

accommodate a permanent change in duty station

of such member

Is the dependent spouse of a member of the

armed forces on active duty and whose

family income is significantly reduced

because of a deployment, a call or order to

active duty, or a service-connected death or

disability of the member

73

OR AND

Is the spouse of

a member of the

Armed Forces

on active duty

and whose

family income is

significantly

reduced because

of a

deployment, a

call or order to

active duty

pursuant to a

provision of

law, a

permanent

change of

station, or the

service-

connected death

or disability of

the member.

AND Is unemployed or

underemployed and is

experiencingdifficulty

in obtaining or

upgrading

employment.

Is unemployed or underemployed and is

experiencing difficulty in obtaining or

upgrading employment

Dislocated/

separating

military

service

members

A nonretiree military-service member who

was discharged or released from service

under other than dishonorable discharge

Spouses of

military

service

members

The spouse of a member of the armed forces

on active duty who has experienced a loss of

employment as a direct result of relocation to

accommodate a permanent change in duty

station of such member

OR

The spouse of a member of the armed forces

on active duty who is unemployed or

underemployed and is experiencing

difficulty in obtaining or upgrading

employment

SOURCE: State of Michigan (2018) and State of Washington (2017a).

74

Table A3 Names of and Employment in the 16 Michigan WIBs

Name

WIA

Code

2016 Q4

Employment

1 Michigan Works! Southwest 26040 237,683

2 Berrien–Cass–Van Buren Office of Michigan Works! 26110 128,293

3 Southeast Michigan Community Alliance 26155 583,992

4 Michigan Works! Southeast 26150 423,650

5 Area Community Services Employment and Training (ACSET)

Council 26160 712,405

6 Capital Area Michigan Works! 26045 239,454

7 Oakland County Michigan Works! 26170 624,847

8 Macomb–St. Clair Workforce Development Board 26015 481,223

9 Detroit Workforce Development Department 26010 220,188

10 Thumb Area Michigan Works! 26120 301,053

11 Saginaw-Midland-Bay Michigan Works! Consortium 26020 227,706

12 Michigan Works! West Central 26100 79,096

13 Michigan Works! Region 7B Employment & Training Consortium 26095 50,350

14 Northwest Michigan Council of Governments 26105 139,678

15 Northeast Michigan Consortium 26060 51,757

16 Michigan Works! The Job Force Board 26125 132,093

SOURCE: WIOA Performance Records Public Use File and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table A4 Names of and Employment in the 12 Washington WIBs

Name

WIA

code

2016 Q4

employment

1 Olympic Workforce Development Council 53010 148,857

2 Pacific Mountain Workforce Development Council 53015 208,157

3 Southwest Washington Workforce Development Council 53005 259,227

4 Tacoma–Pierce County Employment & Training Consortium & the

Workforce Development Council 53040 386,613

5 NW Workforce Development Council 53020 193,706

6 Workforce Development Council Snohomish County 53030 399,538

7 Workforce Development Council of Seattle–King County 53025 1,174,563

8 South Central Workforce Development Council 53075 144,254

9 North Central Workforce Development Council 53045 127,994

10 Benton-Franklin Workforce Development Council 53065 124,779

11 Eastern Washington Partnership Workforce Dev. Council 53070 91,563

12 Spokane Area Workforce Development Council 53035 226,386

SOURCE: WIOA Performance Records Public Use File and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

75

Table A5 Number of Adult and Dislocated Worker Exiters Receiving Training and Using

ITAs in Michigan, by WIB

Adult Dislocated Worker

WIB # Exiters Training ITA % train % ITA Exiters Training ITA % train % ITA

26010 1,674 163 140 0.097 0.859 91 61 51 0.670 0.836

26015 245 244 187 0.996 0.766 127 126 95 0.992 0.754

26020 313 113 112 0.361 0.991 258 77 76 0.298 0.987

26040 135 88 80 0.652 0.909 195 89 50 0.456 0.562

26045 168 155 154 0.923 0.994 118 106 89 0.898 0.840

26060 48 40 29 0.833 0.725 31 27 19 0.871 0.704

26095 79 77 56 0.975 0.727 20 20 12 1.000 0.600

26100 72 70 63 0.972 0.900 13 12 12 0.923 1.000

26105 79 72 56 0.911 0.778 198 49 28 0.247 0.571

26110 37 28 26 0.757 0.929 30 21 9 0.700 0.429

26120 369 342 277 0.927 0.810 171 150 109 0.877 0.727

26125 290 110 72 0.379 0.655 192 37 23 0.193 0.622

26150 139 106 80 0.763 0.755 72 48 36 0.667 0.750

26155 248 162 156 0.653 0.963 291 149 140 0.512 0.940

26160 401 316 265 0.788 0.839 89 68 58 0.764 0.853

26170 357 122 122 0.342 1.000 167 76 76 0.455 1.000

26903 732 723 38 0.988 0.053 372 138 80 0.371 0.580

Total 5,386 2,931 1,931 0.544 0.659 2,435 1,254 963 0.515 0.768

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File.

76

Table A6 Number of Adult and Dislocated Worker Exiters Receiving Training and Using

ITAs in Washington, by WIB

Adult Dislocated Worker

WIB # Exiters Training ITA % train % ITA Exiters Training ITA % train % ITA

53005 466 158 104 33.7 65.8 298 117 74 39.3 63.3

53010 386 41 20 10.6 48.8 211 79 61 37.4 77.2

53015 936 24 17 2.6 70.8 350 167 40 47.7 23.9

53020 120 70 60 58.3 85.7 103 53 36 51.5 67.9

53025 2,964 67 43 2.3 64.2 475 206 153 43.4 74.3

53030 1,968 11 8 0.56 72.7 189 45 38 23.8 84.4

53035 208 66 57 31.7 86.4 213 128 71 60.1 55.5

53040 179 64 58 13.4 90.6 183 78 74 42.6 94.9

53045 153 88 40 57.5 45.5 156 106 67 67.9 63.2

53065 151 62 51 41.1 82.3 123 55 48 44.7 87.3

53070 43 20 8 46.5 40.0 45 26 23 44.4 88.5

53075 78 42 37 53.8 88.1 137 71 10 51.8 14.1

Total 7,652 713 483 9.3 67.7 2,527 1,157 768 45.8 66.4

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File.

Table A7 Number of Reported Cases by Training Type and ITA Use for Adult Program by

Michigan WIB, PY2016

Number of reported cases by training type

1 2 5 6

ITA ITA ITA ITA

WIB No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

26010 12 103 22 19 4

26015 57 56 86 45

26020 1 1 69 42

26040 8 9 49 22

26045 17 1 115 22

26060 11 26 3

26095 21 4 31 21

26100 7 3 59 1

26105 16 3 32 21

26110 1 16 1 5 2 2

26120 58 4 1 240 6 33

26125 3 11 17 53 7 1 10 7

26150 26 20 46 7

26155 6 25 106 4 20

26160 40 9 209 5 2 46

26170 61 50 11

Total 255 251 20 1,279 34 26 18 307

% ITA 0.496 0.985 0.433 0.922

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File.

77

Table A8 Number of Reported Cases by Training Type and ITA Use for Dislocated

Worker Program by Michigan WIB, PY2016

Number of reported cases by training type

1 2 5 6

ITA ITA ITA ITA

WIB No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

26010 1 3 44 9 3 1

26015 31 39 41 15

26020 1 58 18

26040 39 6 33 11

26045 15 14 62 1 3 10

26060 8 16 3

26095 8 3 4 5

26100 12

26105 15 7 14 6 7

26110 11 4 1 5

26120 38 2 2 75 1 32

26125 12 1 1 19 1 3

26150 11 10 21 1 5

26155 8 25 1 97 3 15

26160 7 12 2 39 7

26170 32 36 8

Total 204 158 8 576 12 9 7 140

% ITA 0.436 0.986 0.429 0.952

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File.

78

Table A9 Type and Use of ITAs in Adult Program Training Services by Washington WIBs,

PY2016

Reported no. of cases w/ ITA

Reported number of cases % of cases 5 6

WIB 5 6 State total 5 6 0 1 0 1

53005 47 108 155 0.303 0.697 43 4 8 100

53010 7 34 41 0.171 0.829 4 3 17 17

53015 3 21 24 0.125 0.875 3 4 17

53020 5 65 70 0.071 0.929 5 5 60

53025 5 61 66 0.076 0.924 5 18 43

53030 0 9 9 0.000 1.000 1 8

53035 27 33 60 0.450 0.550 24 3 1 32

53040 2 62 64 0.031 0.969 2 4 58

53045 45 40 85 0.529 0.471 45 40

53065 2 59 61 0.033 0.967 2 8 51

53070 10 9 19 0.526 0.474 10 1 8

53075 3 39 42 0.071 0.929 3 2 37

Total 156 540 696 146 10 69 471

% type 0.224 0.776 0.936 0.064 0.128 0.872

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File.

Table A10 Type and Use of ITAs in Dislocated Worker Program Training Services by

Washington WIBs, PY2016

Reported no. of cases w/ ITA

Reported number of cases % of cases 5 6

WIB 5 6 State total 5 6 0 1 0 1

53005 35 80 115 0.304 0.696 32 3 10 70

53010 13 66 79 0.165 0.835 7 6 11 55

53015 55 101 156 0.353 0.647 55 61 40

53020 6 46 52 0.115 0.885 6 10 36

53025 34 171 205 0.166 0.834 33 1 20 151

53030 4 38 42 0.095 0.905 1 3 4 34

53035 12 54 66 0.182 0.818 12 6 48

53040 2 76 78 0.026 0.974 1 1 3 73

53045 31 68 99 0.313 0.687 31 2 66

53065 5 50 55 0.091 0.909 5 2 48

53070 1 24 25 0.040 0.960 1 2 22

53075 2 67 69 0.029 0.971 2 67

Total 200 841 1,041 184 16 131 710

% type 0.192 0.808 0.920 0.080 0.156 0.844

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of PY2016 WIOA Performance Records Public Use File.

79

Figure A1 Number of Exiters Receiving Training through the Adult Program, Michigan,

Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

Figure A2 Number of Exiters Who Established ITAs through the Adult Program,

Michigan, Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MI Adult Training WIASRD MI Adult Training PERL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MI Adult ITA WIASRD MI Adult ITA PERL

80

Figure A3 Number of Exiters Who Received Training through the Dislocated Worker

Program, Michigan, Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

Figure A4 Number of Exiters Who Established ITAs through the Dislocated Worker

Program, Michigan, Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MI Diswrk Training WIASRD MI Diswrk Training PERL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MI Diswrk ITA WIASRD MI Diswrk ITA PERL

81

Figure A5 Number of Exiters Receiving Training through the Adult Program, Washington,

Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

Figure A6 Number of Exiters Establishing ITAs through the Adult Program, Washington,

Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

WA Adult training WIASRD WA Adult Training PERL

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

WA Adult ITA WIASRD WA Adult PERL

82

Figure A7 Number of Exiters Receiving Training through the Dislocated Worker Program,

Washington, Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

Figure A8 Number of Exiters Establishing ITAs through the Dislocated Worker Program,

Washington, Selected Years

NOTE: Data are presented in quarters and are not seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

WA Diswrk Training WIASRD WA Diswrk Training PERL

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

WA diswrk ITA WIASRD WA Diswrk ITA PERL

83

Table A11 Number of Michigan Exiters from WIA and WIOA Adult and Dislocated

Worker Programs Receiving ITAs and Training, 2004–2017

Michigan WIASRD Michigan PIRL

Adult Dislocated Worker Adult Dislocated Worker

ITA Train Total ITA Train Total ITA Train Total ITA Train Total

2004q2 666 903 1,959 528 807 1,484

2004q3 697 930 2,198 547 784 1,490

2004q4 630 832 1,727 450 638 1,182

2005q1 720 962 1,818 471 650 1,296

2005q2 709 1,124 2,043 560 819 1,443

2005q3 712 946 1,932 561 789 1,340

2005q4 561 762 1,614 466 614 1,113

2006q1 655 783 1,691 502 692 1,456

2006q2 693 880 1,781 561 750 1,628

2006q3 700 852 1,716 626 814 1,449

2006q4 680 864 1,738 542 756 1,261

2007q1 612 781 1,611 604 754 1,336

2007q2 735 957 1,846 763 946 1,751

2007q3 784 1,047 1,948 665 847 1,442

2007q4 717 923 1,659 575 744 1,160

2008q1 845 1,063 1,855 719 866 1,360

2008q2 737 968 1,749 649 810 1,301

2008q3 741 956 1,616 600 755 1,249

2008q4 835 1,050 1,592 602 744 1,074

2009q1 900 1,048 1,575 498 630 956

2009q2 847 1,068 1,675 499 687 1,095

2009q3 1,193 1,386 2,063 814 1,002 1,600

2009q4 1,134 1,499 2,159 911 1,086 1,614

2010q1 1,250 1,567 2,345 1,153 1,454 2,138

2010q2 1,289 1,959 2,906 1,272 1,691 2,794

2010q3 1,419 1,867 2,808 1,600 1,886 2,831

2010q4 1,127 1,430 2,314 1,290 1,586 2,396

2011q1 1,096 1,341 2,204 1,404 1,634 2,302

2011q2 1,128 1,527 2,362 1,320 1,525 2,031

2011q3 1,351 1,723 2,592 1,523 1,776 2,482

2011q4 913 1,083 1,518 945 1,100 1,437

2012q1 763 885 1,631 815 965 1,476

2012q2 655 834 1,355 643 788 1,188

2012q3 945 1,121 1,686 1,073 1,216 1,706

2012q4 715 873 1,317 772 907 1,265

2013q1 817 1,038 1,719 913 1,071 1,454

2013q2 763 954 1,604 755 935 1,250

84

2013q3 682 819 1,509 740 855 1,234

2013q4 672 944 1,617 636 735 1,008

2014q1 645 745 1,311 470 568 863

2014q2 595 817 1,434 489 621 903

2014q3 570 855 1,408 388 480 735

2014q4 489 778 1,290 342 443 715

2015q1 433 711 1,183 251 340 570

2015q2 458 699 1,113 346 453 684

2015q3 452 678 990 288 349 558

2015q4 338 400 569 216 255 437

2016q1 265 313 468 139 169 337

2016q2

2016q3 544 746 1,614 326 407 670

2016q4 434 605 1,275 198 263 679

2017q1 426 659 1,216 211 273 537

2017q2 509 921 1,281 228 311 549

2017q3 531 745 1,148 221 306 600

2017q4 381 521 875 188 249 513

SOURCE: Author’s calculations of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

85

Table A12 Number of Washington Exiters from WIA and WIOA Adult and Dislocated

Worker Programs Receiving ITAs and Training, 2004–2017

Washington WIASRD Washington PIRL

Adult Dislocated Worker Adult Dislocated Worker

ITA Train Total ITA Train Total ITA Train Total ITA Train Total

2004q2 325 581 1,231 859 1,123 1,641

2004q3 351 564 1,184 849 1,080 1,575

2004q4 232 414 940 709 875 1,278

2005q1 131 409 952 499 751 1,139

2005q2 164 528 1,031 568 936 1,382

2005q3 204 485 981 425 809 1,229

2005q4 145 412 922 354 628 1,027

2006q1 147 376 846 103 542 929

2006q2 214 542 1,222 112 743 1,274

2006q3 171 445 1,020 178 781 1,291

2006q4 155 359 816 99 464 852

2007q1 77 295 817 78 513 942

2007q2 300 460 1,258 572 719 1,234

2007q3 258 395 878 412 510 866

2007q4 203 330 736 275 361 654

2008q1 151 269 618 247 321 641

2008q2 184 295 653 300 402 740

2008q3 287 433 762 298 403 773

2008q4 164 252 641 194 255 497

2009q1 111 204 553 172 235 469

2009q2 179 299 732 283 362 687

2009q3 259 372 716 339 434 695

2009q4 235 363 721 335 458 786

2010q1 226 360 721 331 440 705

2010q2 310 508 997 544 753 1,062

2010q3 372 584 928 586 794 986

2010q4 274 439 757 470 630 841

2011q1 252 394 660 450 617 830

2011q2 336 576 950 706 889 1,258

2011q3 326 477 741 689 856 1,092

2011q4 220 356 610 511 631 818

2012q1 189 290 537 444 537 725

2012q2 278 404 697 514 604 833

2012q3 258 403 764 556 679 932

2012q4 226 334 590 415 532 767

2013q1 261 388 674 370 453 682

2013q2 259 411 743 392 494 742

86

2013q3 320 479 976 506 609 941

2013q4 204 327 698 325 414 681

2014q1 267 409 849 372 494 857

2014q2 268 462 865 378 560 922

2014q3 171 355 644 252 404 642

2014q4 116 282 635 197 388 644

2015q1 53 241 555 95 322 543

2015q2 62 337 737 123 453 742

2015q3 86 300 559 99 343 512

2015q4 51 158 403 99 267 375

2016q1 62 128 302 92 192 302

2016q2

2016q3 105 160 465 163 276 542

2016q4 76 135 708 142 203 503

2017q1 118 177 1,291 199 278 602

2017q2 184 241 5,188 264 400 880

2017q3 144 188 4,550 163 238 659

2017q4 135 186 4,822 189 275 699

SOURCE: Author’s calculations of WIASRD and PIRL databases.

87

Table A13 Workforce Characteristics by WIA/WIB

Workforce Characteristics Race Ethnicity

White Black American Indian Other Hispanic or Latino

Washington Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

All Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) 2,565,898 83.4 132,046 4.3 41,220 1.3 337,761 11.0 272,621 8.9

Seattle/King County 764,669 75.7 62,172 6.2 8,460 0.8 174,246 17.3 70,327 7.0

Snohomish County 297,439 83.1 12,897 3.6 3,949 1.1 43,766 12.2 24,015 6.7

Tacoma/Pierce County 276,708 80.7 24,570 7.2 4,543 1.3 36,986 10.8 23,965 7.0

Southwest Washington 225,612 89.5 6,239 2.5 2,588 1.0 17,659 7.0 16,528 6.6

Spokane 186,519 92.2 4,114 2.0 2,873 1.4 8,839 4.4 8,930 4.4

Pacific Mountain 170,442 87.7 5,743 3.0 3,680 1.9 14,562 7.5 13,231 6.8

Northwest Washington 155,679 87.9 3,538 2.0 3,447 2.0 10,846 6.3 15,376 8.9

Olympic 106,633 86.1 3,531 2.9 2,565 2.1 11,058 8.9 7,386 6.0

Central Washington 108,416 89.8 2,871 2.4 3,680 3.0 5,728 4.7 36,761 30.5

Benton-Franklin 106,440 91.2 2,948 2.5 1,256 1.1 6,047 5.2 24,899 21.3

All others 167,341 91.5 3,423 1.9 4,179 2.3 8,024 4.4 31,203 17.1

Michigan

All Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) 3,501,729 83.6 509,513 12.2 24,035 0.6 153,412 3.7 154,181 3.7

Oakland County 460,715 79.3 81,623 14.1 1,867 0.3 36,709 6.3 17,123 2.9

Southeast 466,543 81.7 77,547 13.6 2,261 0.4 24,844 4.3 22,079 3.9

Macomb/St. Clair 400,910 85.6 48,187 10.3 1,680 0.4 17,601 3.8 10,651 2.3

Kent and Allegan 307,249 88.3 27,878 8.0 1,688 0.5 11,152 3.2 22,137 6.4

Capital Area 169,970 86.9 16,730 8.6 1,028 0.5 7,929 4.1 9,917 5.1

Detroit Workforce 41,777 21.4 146,646 75.2 753 0.4 5,751 3.0 8,799 4.5

Career Alliance 151,801 83.2 25,306 13.9 849 0.5 4,550 2.5 4,995 2.7

Washtenaw County 125,328 79.6 19,778 12.6 614 0.4 11,747 7.5 5,491 3.5

Saginaw-Midland-Bay 137,041 89.1 12,804 8.3 669 0.4 3,286 2.1 8,236 5.4

Kalamazoo–St. Joseph 122,956 87.6 12,349 8.8 627 0.4 4,473 3.2 5,402 3.8

All others 1,117,439 93.5 40,665 3.4 11,999 1.0 25,370 2.1 40,351 3.4

88

Table A13 Workforce Characteristics by WIA (continued)

Workforce characteristics Low income Educational attainment

Earnings <

$1,250/mo. Less than high school High school or GED Some college BA or higher

Washington Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

All Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) 622,993 20.2 252,854 8.2 604,438 19.6 783,903 25.5 781,111 25.4

Seattle/King County 169,059 16.7 73,134 7.2 171,707 17.0 243,196 24.1 314,785 31.2

Snohomish County 64,413 18.0 25,596 7.1 66,500 18.6 92,420 25.8 99,913 27.9

Tacoma/Pierce County 69,805 20.4 27,104 7.9 70,612 20.6 90,283 26.3 79,886 23.3

Southwest Washington 53,258 21.1 19,066 7.6 53,372 21.2 67,818 26.9 59,439 23.6

Spokane 46,762 23.1 14,726 7.3 45,520 22.5 54,689 27.0 41,170 20.3

Pacific Mountain 43,867 22.6 14,913 7.7 42,556 21.9 52,569 27.0 43,477 22.4

Northwest Washington 41,838 24.1 14,185 8.2 36,647 21.1 45,117 26.0 37,553 21.6

Olympic 30,219 24.4 9,049 7.3 26,155 21.1 32,987 26.6 29,232 23.6

Central Washington 30,582 25.3 19,373 16.1 26,469 21.9 28,843 23.9 18,872 15.6

Benton-Franklin 25,687 22.0 13,564 11.6 23,491 20.1 28,808 24.7 24,372 20.9

All others 47,503 26.0 22,143 12.1 41,409 22.6 47,173 25.8 32,412 17.7

Michigan

All Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) 1,064,066 25.4 295,302 7.0 913,792 21.8 1,056,359 25.2 919,553 22.0

Oakland County 125,769 21.7 36,067 6.2 109,499 18.8 142,703 24.6 166,870 28.7

Southeast 138,405 24.2 38,923 6.8 115,351 20.2 141,132 24.7 139,492 24.4

Macomb/St. Clair 114,411 24.4 30,618 6.5 96,352 20.6 117,560 25.1 112,322 24.0

Kent and Allegan 84,752 24.4 26,452 7.6 76,277 21.9 85,312 24.5 68,347 19.6

Capital Area 48,873 25.0 13,038 6.7 40,858 20.9 49,184 25.1 43,934 22.5

Detroit Workforce 67,173 34.5 20,978 10.8 41,477 21.3 48,120 24.7 28,909 14.8

Career Alliance 52,122 28.6 13,080 7.2 41,139 22.5 47,220 25.9 37,149 20.4

Washtenaw County 37,693 23.9 9,230 5.9 27,964 17.8 36,169 23.0 44,558 28.3

Saginaw-Midland-Bay 44,613 29.0 11,111 7.2 35,890 23.3 39,786 25.9 29,173 19.0

Kalamazoo–St. Joseph 35,318 25.2 10,158 7.2 31,705 22.6 34,935 24.9 27,266 19.4

All others 314,937 26.3 85,647 7.2 297,280 24.9 314,238 26.3 221,533 18.5

NOTE: Some WIAs/WIBs have changed boundaries since 2015, particularly in Michigan, and may not be consistent with WIB definitions in other tables in this report,

such as Tables A3 and A4. However, the year 2015 is the most recent data available for the workforce by WIA/WIB.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, extracted from “On the Map,” 2015.